You must Sign In to post a response.
Is it right to withdraw life support to a terminally ill family member? Would you follow the instructions of a living will and not prolong life needlessly? This and other aspects of Euthanasia can be debated upon in this active GD which closes on 14th March 2018.
  • Category: Reward Programs

    Passive/Active Euthanasia GD: Should a family prolong life or permit a dignified death?

    We are taking up the theme of two forum threads by Natarajan and Venkiteswaran and combining them for an active GD. Both of them will be rewarded with 30 points & 30 cc.

    The GD topic: Should a family prolong life or respect a person's life to die with dignity?

    Please provide your views in responses to this thread. You can cover the recent Supreme Court judgment about allowing a person to draw up a living will in advance to allow for the withdrawal of life support in the possible scenario of being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Should the family respect this will or consider the possibility of treatment options? In the absence of a living will, should the family not prolong the agony of the patient? These and other aspects related to both passive & active Euthanasia can be debated upon.

    General Instructions: Avoid repeating others' statements. Instead, counter-respond & give your own opinions. You can raise fresh angles to the topic not covered by other participants, but keep the debate on track. A heated debate is permitted, but do not make any personal remarks which taunt another's views or take an over-aggressive stance.

    Best participants will be awarded cash prizes.

    Last date to debate: 14th March 2018.
  • #629200
    I support the Supreme courts judgment on passive Euthanasia. It is better to withdraw the life system rather than letting a person suffer for long. Sometimes, a person will be suffering from the disease for a very long time. A person will be bedridden for many years and may not be able to even to sit on their own without support. Though the person might be aware of everything and be conscious, he will be like a dead person. In such cases also, I feel euthanasia is not wrong as a person will atleast have a peaceful death rather than suffering every single minute.

  • #629201
    I do not support this action or this judgement. We do not know what is hidden in the future. It is possible that in future the treatment of the disease would be available. One more thing we can not produce or generate a life than how can we take a life of a person. If you can not produce then you have no right to destroy that thing. Life and death are on the hand of the God and in my opinion, Almighty God is the final decision maker of life and death. We do not know what is better for us but the God knows better.
    Honesty is the best policy.

  • #629202
    I too support the Supreme Court decision on Euthanasia. As Miss Sushma said, it's always better to remove life support system of a person who is suffering from a long time and grant him a gift of peaceful death rather than making him suffer from a disease.

    I only support passive Euthanasia but not active Euthanasia the difference between both of them is passive Euthanasia lets the doctors remove the life support of a person and make him die naturally on agreement of either the patient or is relatives whereas active Euthanasia forces the doctors to kill the patient using toxic medications to let him die without suffering from a disease.

    There is a moral issue hidden behind Euthanasia. Though both active and passive Euthanasia makes a person die, I think it's unfair and immoral to forcibly kill a person using active Euthanasia during this course, the person suffers a lot of pain while dying. It's always better to use passive Euthanasia by removing the life support and thus by granting person die on his own. When you're willing to gift a person his peaceful death, why to use active euthanasia methods of cruelty and violence against him?

    Venkat Satish Mamidisetti,
    Power Plant Operations Engineer.

  • #629203
    A voluntary euthanasia is a sign of extreme modernization. Science has given us healthy but unhappy lives. Sense of achievement is severely lacking in our lives.
    It is only natural that we would want to leave this world in such case.
    So, is voluntary euthanesia justified ?
    Conditions must be made in such a way that people can attain death after exercising their right to live.
    We allow passive euthanesia in India. A patient's consent can only be attained in passive euthanesia as in active euthanesia the sufferer is unconscious.
    By passive euthanesia, a patient can monitor over his economic wealth and final Will thereby stopping any skirmishes regarding the distribution of wealth.

    Hence I support the verdict.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #629206
    Venkat Satish Mamidisetti,
    Power Plant Operations Engineer.

  • #629207
    Mr.Hakimuddin, I agree with the fact that if you cannot produce a life you don't have rights to destroy it and only God has this power though. Euthanasia will be only exercised only after examining whether the patient can relive in future or not and availability of advanced medicine or equipment could help the patient live in future. Only if All options are negative and no other alternative could make the patient live, Euthanasia is preferred.

    The Supreme Court of India has given extensive rules and regulations for practical use of Euthanasia to avoid any such malpractices. Even though the doctors and relatives preferred Euthanasia for a person, the document will be subjected to extensive examination by Super Speciality doctors who were experienced in Critical Care for at least 20 years. A panel of the collector, the magistrate would also investigate on this document parallelly and if no other evidence of further Living is possible then Euthanasia may opt to the patient. So there is no chance of any malpractice in case of Euthanasia.

    Venkat Satish Mamidisetti,
    Power Plant Operations Engineer.

  • #629208
    I am in favour of passive euthanasia. It's good for a patient to die rather than suffering from lots and lots of problem. Some medical conditions are so painful which sometimes cannot be treated. A person becomes bedridden for many years. He can't walk, can't sit, he's just depressed about him. His family can't see him like he is. Why should A person live a depressed life? I have an aunt who can't walk, can't speak, can't eat herself. Her right portion of the body is paralysed. No one is to take care of her. She has a dominating husband. She is living but her wish is to die.
    Such patients should have the option of euthanasia. If a person has right to live peacefully, he also has right to die peacefully.

  • #629219
    I am in complete support of supreme court's decision of passive euthanasia. To further add on, I also feel active euthanasia is a good thing in fact it is better than passive euthanasia. What is the point of keeping a person in suffering for a little more time? Most of the time, the patient is kept alive for a longer period because the family members want it. The family members cannot understand what the patient is going through. They can feel bad for the patient, but they are not the one who are feeling the actual pain. If they are not going through any physical pain then why should they be the one to decide whether to continue treatment or not. If the doctors have made clear that the treatment will prolong the patient's lifetime only for a little more time and nothing more than that can be done, then why do you want to let that person be in agony for a longer period. Let him die peacefully and be free from his sufferings. Moreover, give him active euthanasia so that his sufferings are reduced as you can not be sure how long will the person suffer before dying on his own.
    Don't sweat the small stuff and it's all small stuff.

  • #629222
    I am of the opinion that the birth and death are pre-determined by the God and who are we to get the death early to a person who is destined to live for some more years. Yes there may be setback for the entire family to look after a person who is in coma for many years and yet there is no hope for recover and even the doctors have left the hope and the patient still lives with his or her will power, and that was the gift from the God. When we are no sure to give a birth to a life, then we are not supposed to take a life forcefully just because the patient bothers every one. If a person suffers of such illness means, it is because of his past deeds and he must realise the mistake , and that stage was given by the God . So by interfering and causing death to he person early, we are penetrating in to the territory of God and thus it amounts insult to the God creation.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #629226
    @ Mohan, It is only our belief in God. Maybe God's will is that a patient is given euthanasia, who knows? How can we say that we are insulting God? No, we cannot think that way and let a person suffer. And we are also forcefully not taking away a persons life. In fact, if modern medical fields and life support was not there, then the person would have passed away long back. It's human who is finding advancements in the medical field for longer life. So when a patient cannot survive without the life support, then what is wrong in taking back the life support? At least let him have a peaceful death than suffering till his last breath.

  • #629233
    I agree with Mr Mohan who raised the point of spirituality in Euthanasia. Active and passive Euthanasia may work in the around the globe but when it comes to a spiritual country like India no one will take a risk of taking one's lives against the willing of God.

    The concept of medicine is a scientific thing and there is no point of visualizing it in a spiritual way. Doctors does not operate a patient by considering how much lifespan the God has written on his forehead, they only operate him if it is scientifically viable. This will be applicable to Euthanasia as well, performing Euthanasia by doctors will be only the last option if the patient cannot survive in future with the help of medical equipment and this will be a solution to avoid any miss comfort or suffering by the patient due to the disease.

    Thinking spiritually in this regard will make things complex and it takes a lot of time to this to solve this issue of spirituality versus scientific medicine which only makes the patient suffer more and get depressed.

    Venkat Satish Mamidisetti,
    Power Plant Operations Engineer.

  • #629237
    We all believe in destiny. So if the God has decided to kill someone by euthanasia. Nobody can stop it. I am a strong believer in God and Ethics. But sometimes by seeing the plight of some patients. I feel that it is better to leave without medication than making him suffer all those medications pains. If really a person is not having any chance to have a recovery from the disease and he has to suffer on the bed without food and drink simply waiting for the death, there is no point in extending his life by giving addon supports like ventilators.But if even a chance one ppm we should not give up. If all the doctors say that there is no hope and he will be on the bed as long as we keep him on ventilators and the moment we remove ventilators he will not survive. In such case, I feel we should not make him suffer. But the decision should be taken very very cautiously after thorough discussion with many experts and experienced persons and concerned authorities. But making a man die by the support of medication is not a good phenomenon in any case. In India anything is possible. So we should have a good overall thinking and suggestions from authorised and God-fearing doctors should be a prerequisite for this.
    always confident

  • #629242
    I don't know if it is right to bring the almighty into this discussion. Even if it is, the god that I believe in is kind and forgivable. He does not want his children to suffer. Even in mythological tales of all religions, god always forgives his children if they commit any mistake. Jesus, even after being crucified asked the almighty to forgive the people. He said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do". God does not want to see us suffer and if he doesn't then who are we to decide if a person deserves to be in pain before dying. If someone wants to end their life, we should support their decision and not force our pointless and illogical beliefs on them.
    Don't sweat the small stuff and it's all small stuff.

  • #629247
    I agree, thinking of god, we should not let a person suffer. And if he cannot be survived without life support, then better to withdraw the life support.
    But what about other patients who are in a coma for a very long period and also others are not in coma state but bedridden for a long period who does not need life support? Should they suffer that way years together? No, even they need not suffer and let have euthanasia performed on them too. If painless dying is better than suffering from a disease which has no improvement, then it is ok for euthanasia.

  • #629248
    Sushama I appreciate your view point. But think from the shoes of the patient. He or she may be having expectations from life, unfulfilled promises and have wants to seen things happening in front of the eyes. All this possible if they are allowed to live. By ending their life abruptly, we are denying their cause to live further. Venkat Satish, there is no spiritual interference or whatsoever. What I stress that the human being must be allowed to live and let him have the natural death, otherwise his curse of having abruptly ended the life would haunt us for ever. Even the best doctor who gives best treatment leaves the net result on the God for recovery and response.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #629250
    Here, by saying suffering from diseases, I am not speaking about diseases such as heart diseases or cancer. I am speaking in regards to person's condition where he has no life in spite if being alive. He can't sit on his own, he can't move on his own, he can't even use bathroom on his own. Sometimes, it will be get so critical that the person cannot move even with support and he has no control on his bowel movements.

  • #629251
    If somebody is in coma or bedridden . Here also I feel we should go by the doctor's report. We know instances about the persons who were in coma for long time re overed well. So the expert doctor's suggestion is agin important in that case. A bed ridden person also may become normal after sometime. So wecan't Generalise the issues. We have to deal each cases based on its merits and demerits. Again the. Committee of doctors who are specialised in that particular disorder should think and come out with the best possible solution to the problem that is being faced by th individual Then their report should be referred to the legal and law enforcement agencies and take a final decision on thi matter. But everyone should keep in mind that thiscan'tbetaken as a chance to eliminate all elders who are suffering with some disorders. Any small hope of revival should be probed in.
    always confident

  • #629256
    I sincerely welcome the supreme court verdict for a passive euthanasia. But the seriously affected will be the medical community who will not be happy as they lose their income by way of keeping the patience on bed for a long period and charge abnormal amount with a false promise that a patient would survive. This verdict may not affect the rich who can keep the person on death bed for any number of months and years and spent a huge sum preferably the black money. But is a boon to the middle and lower class families who cannot afford to spend their hard earned sum as demanded by the hospitals. More than the patients sufferings, the family will suffer financially and mental worries. Now an approved solution is available by letting the patient to rest in peace.
    No life without Sun

  • #629257
    Glad to see the responses so far. But I think, we have not considered the SC terminology and the differences. Let me just clarify

    1.An advance directive or a Living will: This is a valid document that a person himself/herself can draw up. When done in the proper way, this would be valid if the person, unfortunately, becomes sick and is in a vegetative state.
    This is what the SC has recently said. The key is the person is 'compos mentis'- has full control of his mental faculties.

    2. Passive Euthanasia: A situation wherein a life is allowed to pass peacefully by withholding or stopping few medicines(vasopressors to keep the BP up) and devices (ventilators to do mechanical breathing) that would prolong life. Here the person suffering would often not be aware of what is happening, have an altered sensorium and rarely understand but unable to express it.

    3. Active Euthanasia: This is a situation, wherein one has an incurable disease, has rational thinking capacity but is not at the doorstep of death and willfully by choice takes medicines in a controlled environment and actually ends his or her own life.

    So, we need to understand this group discussion with respect to the above three scenarios. We also need to keep in mind the important factors like patient and family wishes, accessibility of health, allocation of resources, emotional well-being of the patient and family, unity and maturity on both the treating team and the family, degree of ethical and moral behavior and financial status of the family.

    Keeping all this in mind, I support the SC decision of Advance directive and the mention of Passive Euthanasia mentioned in the GD title. I would need more legal clarity(Indian scenario) before I can agree or disagree about Active Euthanasia.

  • #629260
    I am against Passive euthanasia as the verdict given by Supreme Court. Birth or death are nature's God given gifts. Even technology and science have so much advanced we cannot stop death or life. In some cases even doctors say he /she may not live for few months may have liven many more years or if doctors say he/she may live healthily after treatment for many more years might have died. So life or death are in God's hand. Thus we should not take the decisive role into our hand and act instead of God which is fully unethical. With my personal experiences I am saying no family members which believe in God will like to take away life even the situation and condition of the patient is grave and the patient wants a mercy killing. In one incident one of my colleague met with a severe road accident and was joined in a trauma hospital. When we went to see in the hospital he was in Coma. Doctors said we cannot say anything about the situation of the patient unless he start recovering. After one week also the situation has not much brightened. The family members also very much feared and also find difficult to aid fund for treatment. All our colleagues raised fund for his treatment and extended the treatment. Then slowly he started recovering and he regained movements in the body. After three months he became a normal person as before. One more thing is if this law is implemented in future the percentage of these unnatural deaths in crease for property or for some other ways to escape criminal cases which bring unethical practices in human society.

  • #629262
    I understand your concern, birth, and death transcends humans and is in the hands of God or Almighty. We respect and have faith in God, but times have changed, we have moved from the union of man and woman to create a life to life being created in a lab with or without the need for both.

    Similarly, we as God's creations are eternally thankful to Him but even He would not like to see his own creation suffering in pain, indignity and literally have a life that is far less than that of a mortally wounded animal. So, we need to re-think at such testing times of crisis and decide ourselves with the inner strength that God has given us.

  • #629263
    @ discussions on Medical Science and Spiritualism
    When we look back at the evolution of our science and faith, many pioneers were harassed for presenting their thoughts. Galileo was to be imprisoned by the Church for his views that Earth revolves around the Sun. This is later proven to be true.

    So, we should realize that science and spiritualism should go hand in hand. There are so many surgeons who say a silent prayer before they start a surgery on a patient.

    There are many childless couples who pray at many holy places, then with the blessings of God undergone IVF treatment and have their precious child. This to me is the best example of how faith and science can co-exist to help mankind.

  • #629264
    I have got few potential counters for spiritual thinkers here. Samadhi culture was always popular in India . A saintly being would be buried,burnt,drowned etc. ; alive, I.e; plugging away that person's life system, the environment.
    Do we coin it a suicide? No we coin it a noble act and sometimes even associate with God's will. How is a chronically ill patient similar to a saint? By the simple fact that both of them mean to achieve liberation from the cycle of life.
    The scenario has been witnessed by Indians from ages. Passive Euthanasia is blended into our culture as a Samadhi tradition.

    If liberation from life is what a rationally thinking mind desires, let him have it.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #629266
    I was touched by the example given by Mr Ramakrishna Garu, I questioned myself what would have happened if his colleagues didn't help and family was unable to bear medical expenses? Will the future living healthy person have been killed in the name of euthanasia as the patient did not show any sign of progress for treatment in the middle?
    Though I support grant of dignified death to patients who are eligible, at the same time care must be taken to avoid misuse of euthanasia. In this regard, Supreme Court and medical council should frame strict guidelines in which cases euthanasia must be preferred for a patient and they must be open for public to follow the guidelines as well.

    Venkat Satish Mamidisetti,
    Power Plant Operations Engineer.

  • #629268
    #629260@ Ramakrishna K, I would like to disagree with you.
    Adding on to my reply#629262, I would like to explain the case of your friend.
    In accident victims, doctors would not take a hasty decision of passive euthanasia. They would give enough time and treatment for the brain swelling (edema causing coma) to settle down. Only when they have irrefutable evidence of irreversible brain damage on CT or MRI and they have met the criteria of brain death (internationally accepted set of deaths carried out by a panel of doctors, would they even offer withdrawal of life supports to the family.
    No doctor or hospital can enforce passive euthanasia on the family or relatives. Such decisions are mutually agreed upon after completing medical and legal requirements and multiple sessions of counseling.

    It's not that the doctor offers, the family agrees and instantly every treatment is withdrawn. With regards to your friend, he would have been given a period of 2 weeks to 2 months for the diffuse brain(axonal) injury to recover, that has happened in his case.

  • #629270
    Members, especially Dr Rao and Ramakrishna,
    Let us not permit our God to enter into this discussion. God is an invisible, unseen and unknown body/object that we believe. If you believe in God, the same good God takes away the life of a person through crucial murder. In the same manner, he may like to take away the life of a person through passive euthanasia or active euthanasia. If that is the case, then we should accept the supreme court judgement and also the active euthanasia which is a willing slow killing. Let the person die peacefully , and let us not permit him to suffer even after knowing that he/she cannot survive. Such an euthanasia would ease the worries of the family members.

    No life without Sun

  • #629271
    @Aditya Mohan, Samadhi culture cannot be treated as euthanasia; it is a form of "assisted suicide" where a person on his will is put to death by others. Euthanasia originates from Greek which means good/easy/painless and peaceful death which will only be applicable when a person is suffering from a chronic disease and where prolonged death can make the patient suffer more, Euthanasia can be a way to grant him a dignified and peaceful death. So there is no relation in between Samadhi culture and euthanasia.

    Venkat Satish Mamidisetti,
    Power Plant Operations Engineer.

  • #629272
    In continuation of my first reply, let me explain my reasons as to why I support the decision.

    1.patient wishes: As a human one may just want to cling to life irrespective of whether can he really be aware of things.Yet, some may have strong views about the quality of life, dignity, dependency or being a burden on someone.
    When such people 'wish' and in a valid format record their wishes, Yes, we need to honor them. The key point in a living will is respecting patient wishes.

    2.Family wishes: No family member would want to see their loved ones suffering when they are in a vegetative state without a chance of recovery. When a loved one is hooked up to all life-prolonging (not life-saving) measures and the end is not in sight, it is heartbreaking to see them being tied up to the bed, tubes running in and out. There is no dignity is not knowing when they pass urine or stools and lie in their own excrements. Some families understand the immense suffering such sick people undergo and do not wish for life to continue without any quality or dignity. At such times, yes, the medical teams and family has to come together and in the best interest decide to agree.

    3.Accessibility and allocation or resources: This is an emotionally difficult area, there are a limited number of beds and resources available in a geographic location. For people living in the rural areas, having a family member lying in the ICU without hopes of any recovery is a terrible time as they have to leave their jobs, stay in the city with meager resources, collect money from kith and kin, sell their lands and jewelry. At such times, the onus is on the medical teams to establish the condition of the patient and if there are no chances of recovery, then support the family to take a decision to withdraw life support.

    Even more disastrous in the situation is how do we allocate funds? to keep prolonging the vegetative life of a person without any hopes or to save another potentially sick but salvageable life. How to choose between A and B, this sort of a dilemma often happens when health coverage is provided by the Government, a hospital receives a sudden influx of patients following a major road accident, earthquakes, floods, epidemics.

  • #629273
    Mr Sun., I request you to read my posts again once.I never said in the name of the GOD let the sufferer go on suffering. What I told is even though I am a strong believer in GOD, if there is no chance for survival there is no point in making them suffer. But it is very important that the experts should rule out his revival by any means. Still, I will be at the same point only. We should not take any point as an advantage for us. In India, These days old people who are having wealth are able to get the services of their wards with a hope that they will get the wealth after the death of that old person. There is every chance people can take advantage of this situation. That is why I say that the opinion should be supported by a strong evidence.
    always confident

  • #629278
    I think before jumping into the cauldron of debate, it is better to try to understand the actual intended meaning of the given title.

    The most common meaning of the term 'euthanasia' is 'the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering'. Further, it is classified into 'voluntary euthanasia' which is conducted with the consent of the patient, 'non-voluntary euthanasia', which is conducted when the consent of the patient is not available and 'involuntary euthanasia' which is conducted against the will of the patient.

    Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing treatment necessary for the continuance of life and 'active euthanasia' involves the use of lethal substances or forces e.g. administering a lethal injection.

    It will not be out of place to mention here that 'amaran anshan (fast unto death) i.e. voluntary refusal of food and fluids till death also borders on 'voluntary euthanasia'.

    Active euthanasia is illegal in India. However, the Supreme Court of India has declared passive euthanasia permissible under specified conditions and subject to guidelines issued in this regard.

    One of the noteworthy point of the judgement is that even if a decision is taken by the near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned. The concerned High Court will constitute a Bench of at least two Judges who will decide to grant approval or not in respect of intended euthanasia. A committee of three reputed doctors will als be nominated by the Bench, who will give report regarding the condition of the patient to the court.

    Having understood the subject matter to the possible extent, let us now dabble into the debate part. I personally find no reason to speak against the decision taken by the honorable Supreme Court of India just for the heck of it or with an narrow mind or misunderstood objectives. The reasons, based on logical thinking, for going in favour of the passive euthanasia are as follows -

    1. Few members have observed that the life and death is in the hands of God and therefore the issues related to death should not be decided by humans. In this connection, it is to be noted that the decision about intended euthanasia is not to be taken by an individual. Instead, final approval of a two member bench of the High Court assisted by a panel of three eminent doctors will have to obtained before final execution of passive euthanasia. The competent courts of law have powers to decide about ending life of criminals by awarding capital punishment in accordance with the law in cases involving heinous crimes. Thus as a matter of fact, there is nothing new in deciding about ending life by courts of law.

    2. Few fellow debaters have confused the subject matter and brought religious twist to the topic. The fact is that the Jains and Hindus have the traditional rituals Santhara and Prayopavesa respectively, wherein one fasts unto death.

    Sometimes, we come across published news reports about cases in which certain unscrupulous hospitals continued to keep the patients on ventilators even after their death, merely to inflate the amount of medical bill. Considering such instances, no wonder in many cases the unethical medical practitioners may be keeping the wealthy patients technically alive with the medical aid with profit motive. Closing such cases through passive euthanasia will end exploitation of the family members of such patients.

    Let us encourage each other in sharing knowledge.

  • #629280
    #629268, In my initial response itself the questions posed by you have answers. Even whatever level the Science and Technology reached the life of an individual is in God's hand. Any Doctor while doing surgery to give life to a patient will tell I will do my best and the rest is in God's hand. Even Science has so much advanced no one know how life enters or leaves a human physical entity. So we are saying what it is there in our hand and what we have not in our control is because of God. You mentioned at present, in laboratory egg and sperm of human beings are fertilized and will be implanted in the uterus of a woman to grow in an individual. But the egg and sperm used in this fertilization are collected from living beings only but they are not artificial cells made in laboratory.

    The second thing is in certain situations, the decision of even expert doctors also stand to be not perfect. We are seeing in so many cases of news items, even the doctors announced the patient dead we have seen the patient may suddenly sit on death bed or trying to carry funeral. In the present law the court saying doctors decision is vital along with judicial and Collector. But we are all seeing in so many cases in news, how in some hospitals for money doctors are treating dead patients. Presently we have seen how judiciary at highest level (Supreme Court) is facing allegations. We also know so many administrative lapses affecting human society. Till now as natural death is the only one way there is protecting society to large extent but if this law implemented will pay way for so many criminal activities and artificial deaths.

  • #629287
    I support the Supreme Court's decision. It is better to give the affected person relief through Euthanasia than to leave him suffer for a prolonged time. Here are my reasons:
    1. Some diseases are fatal and some are not. But even non fatal diseases can draw a person into coma. That coma may last a really long time. There are examples where people have stayed in coma for 10 or more years and then died. Can anybody imagine how much unnecessary torture that person gets through this prolonged coma? We can never imagine what the pain is. It could around a million times than a death can do. Even fatal diseases that slowly kill a person within a year can't do so much torture.
    2. The family members of the affected person go through double the pain. They although can see the patient staying in either ventilation or life support, but they can't actually feel their presence. Their life never becomes as it was when the affected person was hale and hearty. They can't talk, walk, eat or even fight with their beloved relative who is the victim. So Euthanasia is a possible solution for their never ending mental trauma. As it is, they are not getting their relative back to normal life for years, which means their life has become similar to a situation if that person was dead.
    3. Life is like a curse to a person in coma, who can't sit, eat or even breath without mechanical support. They eat through saline channels, breathe through life support, even urinate and excrete through mechanical support. Those of you who are lucky enough to do this on your own, should think of that person's plight. Hence Euthanasia is a possible solution for their problems.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629288
    I thank Managing Editor Vandana or the team that peruses threads to have taken cue from my thread and used the theme for a GD.
    Here we have an active GD to debate 'Passive Euthanasia". Life's many ironies!

    At the very outset, I admit that as of now, until a proper legislation is made by the legislature(Parliament) the Supreme Court judgement is the 'law' on this matter. As such, we have to accept that.
    What we are going to take up is an academic discussion considering various human and practical aspects and not hairsplitting of legalities.

    In an overall view and churning of thoughts from sentiments, spirituality and philosophy and the human uncertainties and even the concept of conscience and destiny, I can say that I am sad or disappointed on hearing the judgement. I am worried more about the future possibilities with negative connotations, because we see how humans trend to be greedy and cruel in their selfish pursuits.

    Though personally I have prayed to God to relieve the sufferings of some terminally ill people suffering, I do not support Euthanasia, because we are still not sure how such a patient's ' spirit and inside conscience or soul' will be affected by that.

    The arguments and judgement considered only the external and peripheral matters known to us by our own judgements through our thinking process. As even the most modern medical science is not perfect and have no perfect answer or cure for many things, is it correct to dole out death by depending reports on such incomplete science and medicine?

  • #629289
    Birth and Deaths are common to every creature on this earth. They are certain things here we have to take consideration in Passive/Active Euthanasia cases

    1)We have to left it for Patient choice (who is suffering from the incurable disease)
    2) If the Patient(who is suffering from the incurable disease) is willing to die and he wants to donate the Organs that will be useful for others then the family should respect his last desire and do accordingly.
    3)If the Patient unable to tell anything here we need to consider many factors
    a) The economic condition of the Patient
    b)A perfect monitoring system should be there in Hospitals(which requires serious scrutiny for presenting an artificial death to a patient) as the Medical history of the Patient should pass through certain levels to give a death to a patient who is suffering from incurable disease exactly like sentence to death cases in courts (where the victim can beg the president to show mercy to him/her)
    c)Last but not the least take a suggestion of the Patient family.

    If everything in accordance to this then I fully supports the system.

    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #629290
    1. There is a discussion about God's will. My point is who knows what God's will is. Maybe he wants his child to get rid of that body so that he could be reincarnated in better form. Geeta says, body is perishable, it decays. The soul is imperishable. So when a patient is going through so much pain and the doctors have confirmed that there is no ray of hope whatsoever, isn't it an indication, that God doesn't want that person to recover. Maybe God wants that person to relinquish the bonds of human ties willfully.
    2. It is true that sometimes it is seen that few people have come back from the coma state after a certain period of time. But in those cases doctors were hopeful that the person will recover and accordingly his or her relatives supported with money and affiliation. But if doctors say that there is no hope for the patient to come back from life support in future, then we know that in the future only the number of days of the person being in life support will increase and nothing else will happen.
    3. In this regard, monetary issues will also creep up. Some authors have mentioned that Euthanasia could be an option when the patient's relatives are in no position to continue the treatment. But, my point is that Euthanasia whether active or passive should be done from patient's point of view. Whether the patient's relatives are able to continue the treatment should not be a factor for Euthanasia. I think to bring a monetary angle in this GD is a little inhuman. The patient's relative want the victim to stay alive as long as possible. So they will go to any extent for that. In fact, there are a lot of examples where patient's relatives have appealed to their respective chief ministers for monetary help as they can't continue the treatment and they have obtained the same. So my request is please don't bring the monetary angle to support the motion. The motion of the GD is from the patient's point of view.
    4. There are few patients whose brains remain functional during coma. Such patients can only communicate through sign language or nodding. Then it is seen that such patients after a prolonged illness nod yes to Euthanasia to get rid of this unimaginable pain. So if they want to end this torture themselves, nobody should stop them from doing so.
    5. Lastly, keeping a patient with a prolonged life support for say 10-15 years with no response to normal and basic human activities whatsoever is like keeping a static zombie. They have mentally dies long back. But since the relatives can't accept this basic truth, they are keeping themselves in a delusional world where they think their patient to be fit and fine. Therefore, the patient's relatives become mentally unstable in this situation. This is harmful for such people who are functional and stay in a functional society. So Euthanasia can free a patient from this unimaginable zombie state. It can also free the relatives from their dysfunctional and delusional mind state.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629291
    After decriminalising the suicide attempt, it is easily and logically understandable that it is legally allowable ( and to some extent we can digest that)- for a "person, who is competent to take an informed decision " to give an advance directive or 'living will" to choose death than suffering.

    But my concern is for those who are not in such a competent state. The court has allowed as passive Euthanasia for such patients also in "in cases of incompetent patients who are unable to take an informed decision, "the best interests principle" be applied ".
    External decisions are involved in that. That is what is causing worry. In the days of avoiding and sending even healthy living old aged people to old age homes and sometimes throwing to the streets, how can attempts to 'avoid nuisance lives be identified and prevented?

  • #629292
    There are many counselling centres to distract people from suicidal tendencies. It is widely understood that if a person is counselled and prevented from taking the act of committing suicide, then he may not attempt it again, and even regret for having taken such a hasty attempt. Can't such similar thing be possible for a person who would have given a 'living will' at the spur of a moment because of desperation and discouragement from near and dear?

    Life is one such costly thing that once taken out, cannot be given back. Even if it is Euthanasia. I dealing with Euthanasia, we only consider the physical body and its sensory understanding. What about the 'soul' or 'inside conscience' or the 'real life hidden inside".
    When someone dies we all pray for the eternal peace of the departed soul. How the soul will depart from a person subject to Euthanasia? It is believed by many faiths that for anyone undergoing untimely death, the soul will not be satisfied and it may wander. What will happen to a soul of a person 'killed' by Euthanasia?

    While we do not allow any normal person to undertake hunger strike as a protest, under passive Euthanasia, we make a person go without food to make him die.What an irony!

    I am sure it is not for the courts of law to consider them. But life is more than the legalities involved. Another irony is that while the main duty of medical doctors is to 'give life', in passive Euthanasia they are to support 'taking life'. A big contrast!

  • #629296
    There are discussions that a person is coming back to normal life from coma or recovering from certain diseases. Of course, there are many cases were a person has recovered completely. Definitely, doctors know when and on whom euthanasia should be given. Just because the person is ill or a person went back to coma for certain time, doctors do not suggest euthanasia. When they realize nothing can be done and there is no improvement, only then the decision of ending life will be taken. Also, no family will abruptly take a decision to end their loved ones life. When they can't see a plight of a patient and when there is no improvement, then the decision will be taken.

  • #629297
    If you keenly observe when a patient died in hospital (after few seconds) the doctor will still make some efforts to the retain the life of patient by putting some heat on the chest to make the heart beat run why I am saying this life is such precious so it is a very sensitive issue to be discussed and it should be left to the patient choice (in case of voluntary euthanasia).
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #629298
    What is voluntary euthanasia? is it a Passive or Active euthanasia or a different one.
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #629306
    Bhushan a voluntary euthanasia is a passive one as active euthanasia is usually a case where the patient cannot think rationally.

    Euthanesia is the option when living becomes costly.
    When I say a cost must be paid I'm not merely referring to money. I'm referring to the psychological traua faced by the suffering person seeing his body slowly destructed.
    Euthanasia is adopted when a person is "clinically dead". Active euthanesia that is.
    And passive euthanasia upon discussion with the patient and his family where a person is terminally ill and in the final,irreversible state of his illness.
    At this point our medicine won't help the sufferer but hurts him by letting him live his horrors daily.
    What's the point in living when you have to lose all your faculties?
    And I'm sticking to the "Samadhi and Euthanasia are similar" because, liberation from life is all that these both are about.
    When Samadhi is justified in Indian eyes so should be the euthanasia.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #629309
    Continuing my views on supporting the decision from #629272

    4.emotional well-being of the patient and family: Sadly there are some diseases where there is no cure and the suffering patient cannot be managed at home. That cannot even recognize their own loved family members. Far from being independent, their lives are assisted by a few machines and few caretakers for day to day functions. Most times the entire family are emotionally strong and after a period of time feel 'We wish we did not have to see father or mother suffer in agony', 'we wish they could pass away with dignity and not suffer anymore'. At such times the medical community assesses the patient based on stringent guidelines and then in agreement with all family members and heirs withdraw life support.

    5.unity and maturity on both the treating team and the family: care of a terminally ill patient without any hope of recovery is a challenge. Often, family members have slightly different views. A sibling would suspect another sibling or adult for talking about withdrawing support even when things are beyond hope. At times a few doctors may have a personal bias strongly about dignified life and may have a low threshold to suggest passive euthanasia. At such instances, the maturity and unity among members on both sides are very important. If there is a disagreement, then withdrawal of support will not be done until the doubts are cleared.

  • #629313
    I think almost all of my fellow debaters are confused about passive euthanasia. Consider the case of nurse Aruna Shanbaug, the woman who triggered the debate on euthanasia law in India. She was brutally assaulted and raped by a wardboy-cum-sweeper of the KEM Hospital, Mumbai on November 27, 1973, where she worked as a junior nurse. The perpetrator had throttled her with a dog chain which cut off blood and oxygen supply to key parts of her brain leaving her blind, deaf, paralysed and in a vegetative state for the next 42 years. She remained confined to a bed at the KEM hospital where nurses and the hospital staff looked after her. She finally died May 18, 2015.

    In the year 2011, the Supreme Court of India had recognised passive euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug case by which it had permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision. Though the court had rejected the plea for euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug due to altogether a different reason, but had legalised passive euthanasia in the country.

    Now consider the plight of patients like Aruna Shanbaug.

    Is it not alright to let such patients die with dignity through passive euthanasia?

    Let us encourage each other in sharing knowledge.

  • #629314
    1)Some people who argue Birth and Death are god gifts how can Court give the verdict in favor of sentence to death.
    2)Freedom of expression is a fundamental right to the citizen so the patient has every right to express his state of the situation.

    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #629317
    There are many points. I read all the response and found that most of the members are in favour of the decision. I want to share some points:
    1. We should try up to the last moment. If we are not trying we are accepting defeat.
    2. Practically it is not possible to wait for the death your beloved one. We will try our best up to the last breath of the patient.
    3. If we favour Euthanasia, it will harm the innovation in medical science. It is important to research the effect of medicines on the patient. And on the basis of these research new medicine come into effect.
    4. The cost of medicine will be more since most of the people will accept Euthanasia. Since the medicine of these type of diseases are already very costly, then how will the people bear the cost of these medications.

    In my opinion, some new technique should be invented to minimize the suffering of the patient. The government should provide subsidy on these type of medicines. Subsidy on petroleum products are not so important but it is important in such type of medicine which is necessary for the patient.

    One more thing, everyone believes in miracles. Miracles happen. So, strongly oppose the decision of active or passive Euthanasia and should fight to the last breath.

    Honesty is the best policy.

  • #629330
    Here are my further arguments and counter points:
    1. Man is mortal in nature. If a coma patient is kept for more than 10 years, then he will not become immortal. In fact, he will be forced to stay in a vegetative and highly vulnerable state for such a long time. Have you ever put yourself in their position. Come in their shoes and then try to argue whether Euthanasia is supporting humanity or not.
    2. Famous Bengali director Hrishikesh Mukherjee has said once that "One's life should be big and not long". The meaning of this quote is that you should not count the number of days one is living. You should see the body of work that the person has done. Even if a victim passes away through Euthanasia, his body of work will not die. Ramakrishna Paramhansa once said that our life should be worthy and we should at least do something with this. If a coma patient is kept for many many years, his number of days will increase and nothing else will happen. You can't even say that the person lived for so many days. You can only say that the life support prolonged the patient's life for so many days.
    3. Another aspect of my previous point is that the way a patient led his life with his relatives will never be same after a prolonged time in life support. Will his near and dear ones be able to eat, drink and make merry with that person in the same manner as before? It is never possible, when the person will never gain consciousness. So how can anyone say that the relatives will be at mental peace if the person continues to stay in life support?

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629332
    4. One of my fellow authors put forward the point of counseling people out of suicidal tendencies. Let me make this clear suicide is a different thing altogether. Suicide is committed by physically healthy people with mental disturbances. When you are physically healthy you can imbibe the counseling procedure and there are 100% chances of getting rid of suicidal tendencies through counseling. But Euthanasia is a choice taken by either patients or his relatives. In this case, almost 90% of the patients are not in a condition to take the counseling procedure. Let me explain in this way. When you are physically fit, you can fight your depression by meeting psychologists, taking antidepressants etc. When you are mentally and physically unfit, when your mind has stopped working and you are left in a state where you can feel the world but cannot react or participate in it, then you can't be counseled. No amount of counseling will cure such patients. He doesn't know he is being counseled. He can only feel the depression. Can you imagine the how dangerous and horrific such situation is. Maybe that person wants to be free of such an agony but hasn't got the strength or ability to express his views.
    5. My fellow author mentioned about trying till the last movement. The point of Euthanasia is raised only after every try, prayer, effort fails. This is many times suggested by the doctor himself. Do you think that a doctor will suggest Euthanasia even if there is a ray of hope?
    6. I would again like to request to not bring the point of cost of medicines for a sensitive topic like Euthanasia. You can't think of Euthanasia for a patient just because cost of the treatment is high. There are lots of advanced government hospitals which provide a better support than private hospitals and that too at a low cost.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629335
    Perhaps, this is the first time in ISC, two similar threads are given equal importance, while the second thread of similar subject either gets locked or given 0 points. I have read both the threads, and found no difference. However, credit must go to Natrajan for bringing out such thread to get discuss. And also thanks to admin for provide us a good GD.

    Coming to the topic, I do not support SC judgement. The reason because now, even for the small reason, the rules can be misused. Now, when the situation is where family love is missing, it can be misused simply. There is something called "miracle" which has happened many a times in medical treatment when a patient is brought back to life from nearing death, such miracle may not happened if we go with the judgement. Life, as long as it beating, we should keep trying to keep it alive instead of giving a cruel name "dignity" to end it.

  • #629336
    #629317@Hakumuddin. I'm glad to see your thoughts

    1.Yes, certainly passive ethunasia is not the first option, we should try our best to explore, only when there is noother viable option do doctors go down this route.

    2. Upto the last breath, Passive Ethunasia gives diginity and an end to the suffering instead of just prolonging the end time.

    3.Certainly not, Passive Euthanasia itself is well researched and it would not curtail research or development of new medicine.

    4. There are no medicines for Passive Ethuansia, instead it's the opposite, medicines and devices that prolong life is withdrawn. The cost of medicines come into play in Active Euthnasia, even there, the services offered are charged at a higher rate than the actual medicines.

    5. Patients are currently sedated well so that they do not feel the pain or suffer in pain too much. There are advances that are noticeable in this field too.

    6.Miracles do happen, but the law of averages state that for one miraculous recovery many hundreds would suffer the indignity and pain and suffering for many months or years without recovery.

  • #629340
    Natrajan, As human grow old, the life become precious. The more older, the more interest to live life more. True, the patient suffer pain still the hope to get well is always there. Out of 100 cases, may be 10 cases would be as such where the patient is in very critical conditions which is worst than a death. However, there are other 80 cases, which need to be use to bring back life rather than neglecting them to go for a death. If a child get sick and in coma, where no one knows when he/she will wake up, in such conditions giving them a dignity death is only a cruel act and nothing else.

    Also, what if a son do not want his dad to be alive for his own interest? Would not be the rules can be misused?

  • #629345
    Yes. There are chances for the misuse of rules always. So the rules and regulations for allowing this passive or active euthanasia should be very very strict and well defined. There should not be any ambiguity in the language so that no one interprets the whole issue to favour somebody unwantedly. This should be the first and the foremost consideration in formatting the rules and regulations. It should never be a one man's decision. All the family members of the deceased should accept and sign to say the action that is decided is taken after considering all option s and finally as there was no way out only this decision was taken. Otherwise many murders in the name of euthanasia will take place in our country. We hear much news about a son killing the father, wife killing the husband so on so forth. They all try to make them legal if the rules and regulation are not framed correctly for this.
    always confident

  • #629346
    Yes, I agree with Mr Jeet Singh, there are more chances of misusing this rules. A son can misuse this decision for property or other heritage reasons. I can not understand how can you leave your beloved one to wait for the death and do not try to save his life.
    Honesty is the best policy.

  • #629349
    If this GD would have come 2-3 decade back, I am sure 90 percent members would not have been agreed with the judgement of SC but now. The reason for agreement for such judgement is the less intolerance in our life. We are so busy day and night that the "love" for family get ended as the sun set. The affections meanings are different now, we become a robot more than a human. So, we do not want to get more torture to wait for our relatives to get well soon. We get frustrate and decide to end their life to give them "dignity death"!

    Yes, this is what is coming out for such kind of agreements. I too agree with Mr. Kuwakhedawala as how one leave his/her beloved one to let them die without trying it?

  • #629350
    I reiterate that the fellow debaters must note that the concept of passive euthanasia is not going to be invoked in case of all patients admitted in the hospital for treatment who are in serious condition. Also, it will not be possible for the family members or the doctors treating the patient to misuse the provision of passive euthanasia for taking life of the patient as very elaborate and stringent guidelines have been framed by the Supreme Court of India. Instead it will be invoked only rarely in those cases where the recovery of patient will not be possible medically.

    I respect the verdict of the highest court of India and wisdom of the honorable judges of the Supreme Court who gave the judgement about the passive euthanasia. The factors like miracles, soul, emotions have no place in the eyes of law as law is said to be blind and acts on the basis of evidences and witnesses alone.

    Let us encourage each other in sharing knowledge.

  • #629351
    Kailash Kumar,
    I would love to know if any one say that without miracles, soul, emotions , love, anyone's life runs? Obviously, a law is law and it has no emotions or eyes to see the picture clearly. It provide the judgement based on witness and evidence. If we bring out the affection, emotions from our life, what would we be? Nothing but a robot. And obviously life is not about doing or acting robotic action, it has more than what we can even think.

    Even if it is the critical conditions and their is no hope for life. Sending such life into death is look as if some one is running off from their responsibility. When we are physically fit, we try to save our life from any kind of situations, it do not comes from mind but as reflex action. If someone throw a knife at you, before your mind react, your body will react to save yourself. It does show that the body need to get alive as long as the heart beat runs. Whether one want to live or not, whether how much pain one have, whether the condition to get back life is nil, still the act should be looked as a murder and nothing else.

  • #629354
    There are lot of implications, ethical, legal problems recognised by government, Supreme Court judiciary as well as elite citizens of public:-
    1. External pressure from patients family members, friends may work on the decision of willful live of the patient. The outside pressure will change the attitude of patient even though he has the wish to live or prolong his life.
    2. Government is fearing that allowing a live person to take the decision of death is simply asking individuals to hang themselves live brings so many problems of moral and ethical standards in society.
    3. Already society is seeing old aged people as non-productive and worthless. So the situation become grave for them as the younger generation try to get rid of them for various reasons like to get property or to avoid expenditure on them. Already judiciary is facing lot of pending cases problem from the various issues of the society and this addition leads the judiciary non-functional state.
    4. Court itself suggested the government, if any one lies regard in these cases, act has to be promulgated such that the person to be jailed for ten years and fined to the extent of one crore. So Supreme Court already smelt the gravity of the implementation of this law.
    5. In India people are accustomed to buy anything with money which push individuals to immoral practices with regards to this law .
    Already surrogacy has become a business in India with which we have faced many problems in the past and now for organ donation business this may also become fuel for it and it is one of the fearful thought of government.

    Those who are talking for Supreme Court verdict are not properly considering the above intricacies and factors which affect the human moral and ethical values of the society.

  • #629358
    When we get a wound or get cut in our body, the nature cure it more than a medicine. If blood start coming out from our body, there is process in our body which stopped it from coming out and it happen before any medication. It does mean that the nature who created us, wants us to be safe from get killing. If nature do not allow us to die, who we are to take such decision for others? It is totally interfere in nature decision.

    In my opinion, it is not moral to kill a person just because he/she is getting difficulty in living. And for what, to get rid of such patient?

  • #629361
    Here, by saying euthanasia, we are not killing a person but we are giving him a peaceful death with no pain. There is a lot of difference between just killing someone for our grudge, hatred and that is murder. But here that is not the case. There are questions from some members that how can we leave our loved one's die without trying. This step will be taken only when we love someone a lot and cannot see them in such a pain till their last breath. Take this drastic step is not any easy for family members. And just because the person is sick, one won't take this step. When there is no improvement in a patient since long and when the condition is getting worse day by day putting the patient in more and more pain, then euthanasia will be suggested.

  • #629362
    Also misusing euthanasia is not as easy as we speak. There are certain guidelines set by the SC and entire families approval also needs to be taken, not just by the son. Even if the family agrees upon, will they doctor to simply end the life of a patient? Why would a doctor take such a risk? Euthanasia will be performed not just on any patient, but only on critical patients who's conditions get worse and that too it is performed after thorough study on the case, treatment given, signs of improvement, persons age, other underlying diseases, how the patient responds to treatment etc.

  • #629366
    I completely support supreme court's decision to legalize passive Euthanasia in certain cases, thus providing citizens of the country a fundamental Right of dignified death under Article 21( which provide us with various kind of freedom such as Right to live) in certain circumstances.
    And I completely agree with the Kailash Sir's response regarding Aruna Shanbag case in which court gave her long due justice to a dignified death. Aren't such cases to be viewed with sympathy where no one is there to support a patient and his/her life is just a suffering.
    In some cases when the family insists to keep a person on life support just for the sake of their happiness when they already know that there is no hope of the patient's survival and the patient is demanding to end his suffering isn't it right to give him that right?
    And removing life support is not killing someone as the patient will eventually die without life support so it shouldn't be seen with the moral glasses in that context, instead of keeping a patient alive in such condition is kind of stopping a natural process which is good when there is hope of survival but not in condition where there is no hope and even doctors have said so, Thus this can't be considered as killing.

    "It is hardest thing in the world to be good thinker without being a good self examiner"

  • #629369
    There is nothing new in this debate, the same thing is getting repeated again and again in different words. The above two responses are same again. Just because a patient being live in bed with medical condition has no future, so we should kill him? The patient who could not even say his own opinion, how do we know if he/she wants to live or die? And what if he/she wants to live but the people have different opinion to give him/her a death?

    A death is a death whether it is painful or not. And, providing death to a person whose body is still alive can be called only a killing act. What else can we say?

  • #629370
    Now, the Doctors role is changed. Doctors are no more a God but business people. His aim is to do business, may be the occupied bed, can bring more business to him, so obviously doctor would want to get rid of the patient. Above all, such patient can be look after at home too.

  • #629372
    Every year there are thousands of accidents, most of them early morning or late night driving. Still people drive their vehicle fully knowing the risks.

    All of us know that drinking and driving should not be mixed together, still, people do and pay a heavy price. But our practice has not changed.

    Similarly with passive euthanasia, deep inside we know the difference between vegetative state with modern gadgets that prolong the agony and suffering, yet we do not want to agree and change.

    Some of us think that the SC (passing the advance directive) and Passive Euthanasia can be misused but an intolerant, inhuman family and medicine personnel. Theoretically yes, but practically there are systems in place and we can strengthen them.

    Just because dogs can bite, do we stop keep them as pets. Similarly just because an option can be misused, we should not be worried to think about it.

  • #629374
    It is obvious, when we allow something harmless today, it may become different tomorrow. Then people will start taking it easy of a human life for what we are giving value. Tomorrow may a trend comes which is unthinkable but we will accept it. Who knows we will be able to control over it ? This is a million dollar question. What may be looking a strong system, can be buy for sum! How we will come to know if the internal meeting is for good cause or just to get rid from the patient?

    Doctor who are a businessman now may take this law as an advantage to kill people without any bothering, because providing death to such patient may bring new business to them. And we will become fool in hand of such doctors.

    Tomorrow, we may come up with such thought that it is better to be dead then fighting with illness?

    Pain and suffering is a part and parcel of our life whether it is physical or mental. That does not mean that we forget to fight for our life. A country where to kill a small species like "ant" is called a sin, people are come up with different idea of dignity death to kill a life.

    Yes, dog can bite, still we keep them as a pet. But human are not Dog, if we can tolerant a dog why not a human life?

  • #629375
    For the people against, the worry is people would be killed. Let me highlight the following individually.

    Advance directive: A person should be in his/her full senses to get this done and getting an advance directive doesn't mean that the individual would be left to die rather than treat him/her. As the SC ruling goes, it needs a team of people, doctors to certify that the person is sane and capable, witnesses, lawyers etc. So there are multiple levels of checks. In the event that this person suffers a major illness, this living will, cannot be enforced until the criteria are met.

    Passive Euthanasia: Again, this is not just quackery or a decision of one person. There are guidelines drawn based on the organ system function, existent literature and evidence of the disease and the severity. Only when accepted treatment has failed and the situation is irrevocable, then this option is taken.

    Has anyone known a person who has received a kidney or a liver or a heart from a brain dead patient. Then they would realize that, the families of the poor Brain dead patients with irreversible brain damage take a decision to withdraw support( until the organ is removed) and go the next step of agreeing to donate the organ to someone else. If they object to this, then there wouldn't be many cadaver organ donation programs from brain dead patients.

    Active Euthanasia: This requires a great degree of maturity on the part of the patient or person who looks well from outside but has an incurable disease or a disease that will rob them of their dignity and right to lead a normal life. Here also, the individual concerned cannot be forced to accept it, in fact it is the other way round, these people have to force the medical community, the legal heads to grant them this right. It is illegal in India. But there are a few centers in Europe that offer this.

    So, by and large, an advance directive or passive euthanasia should be viewed as tool that can be easily misused by vested interests to end a life. Far from it, it is a protocol based system based on evidence, like we treat disease based on guidelines and evidence.

  • #629379
    At the outset, I thank the Managing Editor for allowing a GD on this relevant topic. Since the very beginning of the twentieth century, the issue of euthanasia has been a very controversial issue. The issue has been discussed and is still being discussed in all major western countries. Some of these countries have made euthanasia legal subject to some stringent conditions. Some other countries have not yet allowed euthanasia.

    Since the historic judgement given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India headed by CJI Mishra, there are wide discussions in various fora in India on various aspects of euthanasia. Before expressing m,y opinion, in the first part of my response, I would like to define euthanasia, active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.

    Euthanasia is a Greek word, the literal meaning of which is ''good death''. It can be simply defined as the practice of intentionally ending the life of a long-suffering patient to relieve pain and suffering. Euthanasia is of two types, viz,. active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.

    Active euthanasia happens when the medical professionals, or any other person(s), deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, i.e., the patient is given some injection and he/she leaves the world peacefully. On the other hand, passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or, when they stop doing something which is keeping the patient alive. The example of passive euthanasia is switching off the life-support machine.

    The Supreme Court of India has allowed passive euthanasia in India subject to some stringent conditions.

    In the next part of my argument, I will discuss the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in detail.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #629381
    So that mean a brain dead person has no meaning to his/her life, we start donating their organs? What kind of thinking is this?

    look at this sentence - "This requires a great degree of maturity on the part of the patient or person who looks well from outside but has an incurable disease or a disease that will rob them of their dignity and right to lead a normal life."

    Now the topic has come to maturity of a person? Even though he does wants to live his/her life, we will start seeing at such people with a burden! If such thinking is as of now, this may not take more time to turn on other way around.

    We might start looking at people who lost his one leg and may change our thinking why he is living?

    This nothing but a dangerous situation for both our life and society. The protocol, the guidelines and evidence in our country easily could be bought and this is not a rocket science.

  • #629385
    Brain dead people around the world have meaning to the lives they have lives until that point of time and yes, world wide that are thousands of such noble souls who keep the lives of others ticking. In the medical fraternity, the most respected people on this planet are the brain dead( cadaveric) donors and their families (this does not include people who sell their organs when they are alive).

    back to my sentence on active euthanasia, yes it needs maturity because here the person 'Does Not Want To Live', instead he or she want to rightfully end their lives when faced with an incurable disease. The family or society does not see them as a burden because such requests come form the sufferers themselves.

  • #629388

    When we have such advance medical treatment where the mental people can be cured then why can't we cure such people who Does Not Want To Live? It is obvious because of mental stress or frustration they get such kind of thinking. Instead people should stand with them with positive advise and stand with them. There are people who have suicidal thinking, do we allow them to die? Or should provide them proper medication to come out with such trauma?

    We debate that providing a dignity death have not pain because such medicine can be used which provide no pain or suffer. All right, if this is so, why can't we reduced pain and suffering from such patient who are bedridden and allow them to live their life?

    Life is really not an easy, we go through pain, suffer and mental torture and we should fight for our precious life than bringing such negative message to kill people.

  • #629389
    Just because a patient being live in bed with a medical condition has no future, so we should kill him? The patient who could not even say his own opinion, how do we know if he/she wants to live or die?
    Do you feel a person wants to live in that condition for the rest of his life without saying a word, without moving? He should only bear the injection pricks, medicines every day. Do you think they want to survive that way? I have seen 2 cases in my family were a person was on bed for several years without being able to move and no control on his bowel movements, except he was able to speak. Literally every day they cried and prayed for death. And of course, doctors are business people and occupied paid gets them paid. Does a family of a patient in coma or in critical stage does not pay him? They charge for every patient till they are in hospital and the charges will be comparatively high especially for critical patients and coma. So, getting rid of patients for new patients doesn't makensensenas long as they are paid.

  • #629391
    1. Do you feel a person wants to live in that condition for the rest of his life without saying a word, without moving?

    Of course I do, because he/she can not speak does not mean he/she does not want to live.

    2. I have seen 2 cases in my family were a person was on bed for several years without being able to move and no control on his bowel movements, except he was able to speak. Literally every day they cried and prayed for death.

    I am sorry to hear this. But, they cry out of frustration and not because they do not wants to live. Please try to understand. We sometimes cry and think our life is waste, does that mean we wants to end our life? What sometimes we say in anger or frustration may not genuinely comes from our mind and heart. Instead, we should take care of such emotions, we should provide them strong support. We should try to bring out such negativity from such patient.

    3.Does a family of a patient in coma or in critical stage does not pay him?
    Of course they pay, but getting new patient will not make them lose their business. Also, they can get rid of old patient to take care of them as daily routine.

  • #629398
    I am not for, for this kind of judgement. I read the responses by the members. Only thing I wish to say that putting him forceful to death is not fare as a human because as long as the person is hale and healthy we respect him and not only that we get work done from him and as soon as he is brain dead why should we give such a death to him. Natural death is always better because its as good as killing a person legally. Even though the patient is brain dead, patient can feel the sense and whats going around him by himself but only thing patient cannot express because of health issues. That moment we think like that on patient view its always better to have dignified death. According to me and birth and death should not be predictable.

  • #629400
    Only few countries of the world-27 countries of the world are in list of euthanasia by March,2018. Most of the countries allowing only Passive euthanasia but not Active euthanasia like India. Most Western Countries who made this law well before India have not met with great success. In my opinion Science and technology should support and work for improvement of human life. Surely it is doing that and its role is always promising. Then why people have to go back to ancient times and lose hope. Stephen Hawking one of the greatest Physicist of the World at the age of 21 years he was diagnosed to have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) disease. Doctors informed him he may not see 25 years due to this disease. Because of the progressive paralysis of muscles disease he cannot move, he cannot talk but can communicate only with computer voice system. A person whose brain only active and all other parts of the body are in ill functional state is able to live even today with 76 years. If Stephen Hawking thinks to lead such a life worth not living do you think such great discoveries of him can we ever expect. Still this greatest scientist doing Research work with all his debilities is a wonder and it is only possible because of Science. So Science should provide such a type of confidence and hope to the individuals rather than inculcating fear fear about life.

    Similarly the Siamese twins Veena and Vani are living together with great disadvantage and pain. Even though the parents have left them in hospital because of lack funds to face the situation but the government authorities taking care about their welfare. We all definitely know how difficult it will be for the twins to lead such a disadvantageous life? Can we think about such Euthanasia law to be implemented in such cases?

    #629350, The author expressed emotions, soul, love, affection or miracles do not have place in eyes of law. But in implementing the law there are lot of ethical values, moral values and human values are to be taken into consideration is the thought of Supreme Court, government and Human Right Associations to frame this into a law.

  • #629417
    Once again I want to reiterate that I am not disputing the SC judgement, as the case has not come suddenly. But it is the evolution of discussions and legal battles for last many years or even decades. But I see things beyond the mundane legalities and permissions.
    The present judgement allows only passive Euthanasia- either voluntary or non-voluntary. It has not touched active Euthanasia as , for that a legislation is needed.For allowing passive euthanasia the court has only extended the interpretation and validity from other cases to this also. Hence a comprehensive legislation is needed later.

    A 'living will' is mentioned in this regard. If not, a medical board report and advise is needed. It is here I have my own pondering.

    A suicide is when one commits it on oneself; a murder is when one kills another; euthanasia is allowing someone to cause death to self. or it is an assisted suicide. If it was suicide, the abettor will be punished for the crime. but in euthanasia the medical board or whatever be the authority who sanction that, get the legal sanction.

    So now passive euthanasia being allowed I take it as suicide assisted from outside, or one plans and implements one's own suicide taking help from others.

    As the mystery of life, mind and soul is not yet solved, I am not at all convinced that euthanasia solves the question of diginity. After all dignity is in one's mind and not in body. So how can one say 'dying with dignity' correctly when the true state of mind is not known at all?

  • #629418
    In the second part of my argument, I will discuss the judgement delivered by the five-member Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9th March, 2018. The Bench has confirmed that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The bench has also upheld the legal validity of passive euthanasia and allowed the preparation of living wills or advance directives for passive euthanasia.

    Hon'ble Supreme Court had previously held that there is a fundamental right to die with dignity, but there has been some confusion as to what this includes. This case was meant to address the confusion, so there should be some clarity now. The right to die with dignity will not include active euthanasia. It is also expected by the Hon'ble Court that the right will not include assisted suicide for people who are not terminally ill.

    The Aruna Shanbaug (earlier mentioned by Mr. Kailash Kumar) judgment had allowed passive euthanasia for a terminally-ill patient who was in a vegetative state, but at that time it was argued that that judgment had been delivered based on a wrong interpretation of the law and that passive euthanasia wasn't legal in India. The Constitution Bench has now conclusively held that passive euthanasia is legal.

    Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that living wills are valid in India. A living will or advance directive is a written document that allows a patient to give explicit instructions in advance about the medical treatment to be administered when he or she is terminally ill, or no longer able to express informed consent. The person can use this to say that they don't want to be kept on life support if they become dependent on it, allowing them to die. The Hon'ble Court has set out guidelines on who can execute a living will, what the document can contain, and how it should be presented to a hospital and the procedure the concerned hospital then needs to follow.

    But all terminally ill patients would not be able to prepare their own living will, so the Hon'ble Court has set out a procedure detailing how passive euthanasia can be allowed in such situations. In the absence of a living will by the patient, their family members or the next friend can approach the High Court to ask for passive euthanasia. The Supreme Court has also included detailed guidelines in the judgment under what circumstances this type of petition will be allowed, and how the High Courts will need to deal with such requests.

    In the next part of my response, I will deal with the ethical aspects of euthanasia, especially in Indian context.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #629420
    1. Like one author said that the condition of a bedridden patient could be so bad that the family members pray for their death. So as you may understand from this that prolonged life becomes meaningless for the family members in comparison to dignified death.
    2. I don't think that this decision of Supreme Court would be used by viscous people for getting hold of property. This is not feasible. It is because very rare cases are considered for Euthanasia. In such cases the doctors form a board with surgeons and experts. Such experts then try to iterate whether there are any other probable solutions than euthanasia. If there is a slightest ray of hope none of the doctors will allow this kind of a process to happen to their patients. So this is a very lengthy procedure. If you are suggesting that evil minded people will try to get rid of their old family members for the lust of their property, then you are suggesting that they will carry a procedure so that the old person gets into coma and then they wait for 7-8 years of non response and then the doctors also give them the permission for euthanasia. This is preposterous. If a person wants the property, then this procedure is the most lengthy and implausible procedure.
    3. Euthanasia is not only about death, it is also about breathing new life into the victim. It ends the excruciating pain and brings peace to both the victim and his family members.
    4.Sometimes the person in coma might not have anybody in the family to support. Many times when there is no further improvement possible in hospitals, doctors suggest the patient to be kept in ventilation support at home. Then who will take care of that unfortunate patient? The patient comes to a state where nothing better possible in the hospital, life support is inevitable for the rest of the life and no near and dear one to bring a ray of hope. Then other than euthanasia could you suggest a better alternative?

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629432
    A living will is that the patient's advance directive to say the hospital authorities that he no longer needs life support treatment when he finally reaches terminally ill stage. How can a patient decide himself that he cannot get recovered when a life support treatment is given in time of need in ICU. The patient is not an expert and mature enough like a doctor to decide and direct his treatment. I don't think no patient is mature enough to imagine his state well before and say about his final treatment. In case of the patient not given living will, the family members have to take permission from judiciary and other sources to stop life support treatment which involve lot of moral, legal and ethical issues. Taking a decision on behalf of a patient and remove life supporting treatment is simply is an assisted murder. How can we say this as 'dying with dignity' in relation to the patient.

  • #629435
    When I was in Childhood I saw the news that a boy who was suffering from an incurable disease ask to end his life and donate the organs who are in need at the time the parents move to the court for to complete the last desire of her son but what happened next I haven't followed...If you have right to live you can have right to die whats wrong with that come on ...
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #629442
    It's very easy to come into emotions in these kind of cases. But think rationally.
    Jeet Singh. Euthanasia isn't performed as soon as a person wishes it. The patient has to fulfil the criteria wherein he considers that living on is futile.
    Imagine a patient suffering from Aids.
    Or in the final stages of cancer.
    The medication will do a little help only by postponing death.
    Psychologically that gives a patient horrors , knowing that there's no cure in such expensive medication.
    Such a person would obviously want to end his life. It's not ruthless. It's an act of kindness.
    And the passive euthanasia for which the Indian government has given permission, cannot be performed without a complete consent of the patient and with his family later. The patient's will is supreme though.
    How come such a process can be misused?
    Only active euthanasia where the patient , unconscious of his surroundings and cannot give a consent, there is a minute possibility of misuse.

    And if you're hoping for miracles saying people woke up from coma and other things like that, there's still scope in passive Euthanasia. After plugging out the life system the patient's body is left on it's own. Sometimes due to this sudden change, patient shows a better recovery.
    Isn't that great then? We can hope for miracles even after plugging out life system.
    So what's really bad in passive Euthanasia?
    Can you deny a person's right to die ?

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #629450
    Due to the advancements in medical sciences, it has been possible to keep a person alive in vegetative or coma state for a long time though the percentage of people coming back to normalcy after a prolonged vegetative or coma state is really very low but on that small hope of revival, these measures are adopted.

    The doctors, who are the professional experts in this field, cannot conclusively tell about the fate of the patient and the family members who are emotionally and sentimentally attached to the patient want to take a chance. All this makes the situation very complicated.

    We all have seen so many cases of patients lying in vegetative or coma state and finally, after a few months or years, they leave this world as chances of revival are so small. In such a scenario removing the life support systems and helping the patient die peacefully is the best option. The supreme court ruling in this aspect is a welcome move that if a person has given this choice in his will then he need not to be put on life support system for an indefinite time.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #629453
    1. You know, a patient bedridden for a fortnight or more starts developing bed sores. If he stays there for a 2-3 moths, his organs start malfunctioning. Can you imagine what would happen internally to a coma patient who is lying on the bed for than 5 years? I once had a student who was ill with some disease and was bedridden for a month. When he came back, he was unrecognizable. He had developed other sorts of diseases by lying on hospital bed for a month. He had to regularly visit a doctor to cure them. Passive euthanasia can free a patient from such a peril.

    2. When we are talking about God's will, have you ever thought why people are born? Don't you feel that all of us are a result of a large experiment performed by God? Don't you feel God has created us all to fulfill some social and cultural work? We experiment with our work and abilities and benefit the society and get benefited in return. If a patient lies on bed for 10 or more years, will he be able to fulfill God's intentions? Will that person be himself satisfied by staying away from work, legal obligations and moral duties for so long?

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629460
    Whether it is active euthanasia or passive, in both the cases the patient are provided unnatural death. By forcing them to die just because they are useless for this world! This is nothing but preposterous too.

    So far the main logic is this that the euthanasia is allowed to provide the end of pain and to provide them new life to the particular patient and the family member. I mean, people and the family members could not able to provide them the current life and we are talking about new life? It is a simple attitude where people wants to get relived from their duty. They no more wants to tolerate their own suffering instead of the patient suffering. Instead the doctor and the family member of the patient wants new life for them and not for the patient.

    "Such a person would obviously want to end his life."
    How can be so sure about this? Have we reached to such level in science that we can read the mind of a coma patient ?

    "I once had a student who was ill with some disease and was bedridden for a month. When he came back, he was unrecognizable. He had developed other sorts of diseases by lying on hospital bed for a month. He had to regularly visit a doctor to cure them. Passive euthanasia can free a patient from such a peril."

    I didn't understand what would the author wants to say by stating this statement? If this student can be cured by the treatment and with the help of medicine, why can't the bedridden patient be cured?

    It is obvious to know that the bedridden or coma patients are not easy to get back their natural life. And we do not know exactly what is happening internally, how can we kill such patient? Only thinking negative way that such person only need a death only a uncivilised thinking and nothing else.

    God is no one but a supreme power, Yes we are the result of large experiment and such experiments require to get back the life when a human life lay on bed helpless and hopeless, then the such experiment require to let them be alive naturally and not kill them unnaturally.

    We talk about our advance life, advance science but when the time come to show our duty, we run off from our responsibility and look for the way which allow us to do our work by short cut.

    "Will that person be himself satisfied by staying away from work, legal obligations and moral duties for so long?"

    Are we debating here or guessing? We fall sick and we may take leave from our work to get physically fit, can't we think this way?

  • #629461
    There is a famous quote in Bhagavat Gita I will write here in Telugu 'Puttinavadu gittaku tapadhu gittini vadu putaka thapadu anivaryamagu ee charya ku chintimpa thagaadu or dhukimparadhu'. A man who will be born will definitely die and the man who died will have a rebirth so you don't feel sorrow for that.
    A blunt knife or rusted knife can't be useful for anything just for the sake we call it as the knife similar to PayTM series or Sachin or Virat records.

  • #629462
    So far in this debate, those who supported the SC judgement only trying to keep their points by guessing of such patient health issue. We do not know what such patient think, if our guessing says that "such people do not want to live" or "can such people perform their duty when they are not physically fit."

    These statements are all based on our guessing, it does not provide a strong point that such people need a death. If we go by our own personal thinking, we may never wants to die! If when we are physically fit, we fight for our life and struggle to keep our hope on. How can such mind start thinking only negative way that they do not want to live?

    Is not the euthanasia has come to provide relief to doctor and the patient family rather than the patient?

  • #629478
    Those who are talking for passive euthanasia are always repeatedly mentioning to relieve from pain of the patient will of living to be applied. But in the present advanced Medical field there are affective pain relieve management systems are which can be best used.

  • #629479
    1. It is hilarious how a dog bite is compared in this GD. Dog bites are never tolerated. That is why, pet dogs are given rabies injection and harmful stray dogs are taken away by dog vans. In fact, a mad dog who is incurable is killed. If you compare this with our GD topic, then Euthanasia is a choice given to either the patient or his family to end the non ending illness.
    2. I don't think Euthanasia provokes suicide. Suicide is provoked only by depression. Depression can creep up from any unmanageable situation.
    3. In a democratic society a person suffering from terminal illness should have freedom of choice to choose between life and death. Same thing should be applicable for the family who is going through that severe mental disturbance and trauma.
    4. Many of you must have heard of the term Hippocratic oath. Earlier this oath prevented the doctors from any kind of passive Euthanasia. Today this oath has gone through voluminous changes. Now a doctor is supposed to decrease the excruciating pain of the patients. If the patient wants to end his life, because he is can't bear it anymore, then doctors are expected to support his last wish. This is a case of patients suffering from terminal illness. If you still think that Euthanasia is supporting suicide, then how come our government is supporting this modification in the Hippocratic oath?

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629483
    @jeet Singh Family member could not give current life, how can hey give new life?
    Here family members try hard and their best to give current life to the patient. Even with all the efforts, if there is no improvement except for the pain and suffering of the patient, they think of giving peaceful life.
    Also, it is stated that members supporting SC judgement are doing guessing work that patient does not want to live. But, I feel, members opposing the judgement are also doing the guessing work stating a patient will have the desire to live. Here, members opposing the judgement don't want to go against nature and don't want to monitor euthanasia and are guessing that a person does not want to die and would like to live. But, no patient will wish to live for rest of their life not being able to move, or do anything on their own, always monitered with injections and medicines or in a coma state.
    By agreeing for euthanasia, it does not mean family memembers want a new life for them or get rid of their responsibilities. It's the love of family that they don't want to see patient in more pain everyday and the procedure the patient goes through.

  • #629485
    @Ramakrishna, of course, there are effective painkillers in the modern medical field but painkillers cannot be monitored continuously to a patient. It can be monitored for a certain number of times with appropriate time gap between the previous time painkiller was given. Usually, effect of painkiller comes down very soon. And, while starting treatment and monitoring medicines, patients sugar level, BP, his age factor, everything should be kept in consideration.
    Recently, my husbands grandfather passed away with multiple diseases and infection being spread throughout his body. Starting off the treatment or giving any new medicine became difficult as his BP was low, sugar level was high and he was too old to respond to medicines. He was kept on a life support till all the relatives came. Doctor told us that even with life support he will not be able to survive and he will be in deep pain in spite of medicines given. We were getting him home and he left us on the way.
    I gave the above example because, if life support was not given to him, he would have left us long back. By giving him life support, we put him through more pain as he had to bear the pricks every now and then, also the pain his body gave him.

  • #629486
    #629483, Sushma,

    "I feel, members opposing the judgement are also doing the guessing work stating a patient will have the desire to live. "

    You are correct, we both are guessing. But, our guessing is positive and based on real life. Ask anyone if he/she wants to die? No one, No one would want to die, wherein "who does not want to live" is just a guessing and nothing else. This is the main difference in this debate, those who are supporting this judgement are full with negative thinking.

    "no patient will wish to live for rest of their life not being able to move, or do anything on their own, always monitored with injections and medicines or in a coma state."

    Again, these are just negative guessing. We just can't be sure what a coma patient want? Instead, we are forcing our own personal interest on this thought that the patient wants to die!

    "It's the love of family that they don't want to see patient in more pain everyday and the procedure the patient goes through."

    Again, if euthanasia can provide painless death, then how come painless life is not possible?

    "If you still think that Euthanasia is supporting suicide, then how come our government is supporting this modification in the Hippocratic oath?"

    Life is not all about doctor's work or government judgement. We are not discussing that government judgement is only correct. We are discussing whether the judgement is agreeable or not. A government judgement may go by with so many interest. But, that is not we are discussing.

    "In a democratic society a person suffering from terminal illness should have freedom of choice to choose between life and death. Same thing should be applicable for the family who is going through that severe mental disturbance and trauma."

    Its hilarious to think that we are associating democratic freedom in death and life. A life is not a fast food that can be made depending on a customer taste! A life is life after all, where a heart beat, no matter whether it is bedridden or useless for the society. Killing any kind of life should not be a way for any society.

  • #629490

    In short, we want to say that kill a life if he/she does not have any improvement. Why to waste a time and money for such patient who has no future. Yet, as long as life is there we should not leave it to die.

    Now, we are coming to such age with this kind of thought where anything could happen. We may start leaving hope even before we start to fight for it.

  • #629498
    About 1,50,000 people die daily in the world. On an average about two third of total deaths occur due to senescence or biological aging though in developed countries like USA, UK, Germany etc. about 90% deaths occur due to senescence.

    There are various terms to describe death e.g. physiological death, legal death, medical death, clinical death, biological death etc. , but death is ultimately death. However, such types of deaths as mentioned here can be seen, observed and noticed. On the other hand, the spiritual or philosophical interpretation of death, soul, resurrection, reincarnation etc, cannot be seen or witnessed.

    We have to live in this world with its existing or observable phenomenons. We will have to perform last rites as per the respective religious practice as the human body starts decaying after death. There remains no scope for thinking about soul etc. under such circumstances.

    Many people die daily due to various diseases out of which unfortunate one belonging to poorer strata of the society die without any medical treatment. Many die due to malnutrition and even due to hunger. People, overlook them and leave them to die on their own. Such people undergo a lot of suffering and pains but the people opposing euthanasia find no fault in themselves. Letting such people die without food or medical treatment is akin to euthanasia only. Why the advocates of no intervention in death process don’t take responsibility for such deaths which occur, I would say, due to the neglect of the society.

    Let us encourage each other in sharing knowledge.

  • #629500
    It's not negative thinking to free someone of their sufferings. It's a calculated decision taken by discussing it with the experts. This decision is driven by the empathy that people possess for their loved ones. Designating this act of kindness as negative thinking is preposterous in every sense.
    Speaking of painless life, that is a completely different thing and going their will take this debate in a completely different unrelated direction. How can you even possibly compare the daily struggles with those moments where the person is suffering every second he lives. In daily life, there is pain but there are moments of pure happiness which drives a person forward but a patient who is in perpetual agony and nothing else, how can he motivate himself to go on. This is not negative thinking, this is compassion.

    Don't sweat the small stuff and it's all small stuff.

  • #629502
    How euthanasia is applicable in the case of poor people? They will not remain admitted in hospitals for several years in coma to invoke the process of euthanasia as they have no money to foot the hospital bills. The harsh truth is that such people will die a death of pain and misery, totally unattended and unmourned. Metaphorically, the society administers euthanasia in such cases by neglecting them and without bothering the least for 'soul', 'resurrection' or 'reincarnation'.

    Let us think threadbare and rationally. We may find that keeping an individual alive with the aid of medical science is an intervention in the natural process, not administering euthanasia.

    Aldous Huxley has rightly said that - 'Medical science has made such tremendous progress that there is hardly a healthy human left'. Are we not commiting a sort of sin by interfering in natural death process by keeping a human body, which has become medically unrestorable, forcibly in vegetative state by connecting the same with ventilators like medical gadgets?

    Let us encourage each other in sharing knowledge.

  • #629503
    No, just because a person has no improvement, we don't say yes for euthanasia. We go for it only when a person is in deep pain, surviving only with medicines and life support, even the pain cannot be controlled with medicines. Sometimes, there are people battling life threatening diseases. They are not bed ridden but they take carry on with their life with day to days task and taking treatment now and then. Though there is no improvement, their condition is not worse either. Euthanasia is not recommended for such people. We think of Painless killing only a bed ridden person shows no signs of improvement from many years and their condition getting worse day by day.
    And we lose hope only after fighting for long. We don't lose hope as soon as we hear that the person is sick. With the hopes of getting him recovered, treatment is given and when nothing works, hopes are lost.

  • #629509
    Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but they do have one extremely important advantage over humans, even though they are animals, they have Euthanasia, a right to a merciful death. Milan Kundera, a Czech born writer from France.

    I find this quote very thought-provoking, When animals can have a humane or a peaceful death under specific circumstances, I'm sad at the irony of the view that humans cannot have a humane death.

    Regarding a living will, Quintus Horatius Flaccus, a Roman poet is aptly said, " To save a man's life against his will is the same as killing him".

    While I support the decision of SC on the 'advance directive', it is with the understanding that, if I as an adult, 'cannot' give consent over when my life would end with dignity, then what is the point of being alive. Who do I belong to? Who has the power overrule me and decide that I should live and suffer from a terminal illness? As a person with a sound mind, Can't I pass away peacefully? please don't brand me as a coward because it's not suicide I'm asking for, it is the fundamental right to preserve the dignity I had in life and in death.

    This is what the SC judgment means to me, I think it's fair and right, Yes, the twisted minds can think of misusing it but it's the 'duty of society' to have preventive measures. It would be immature and narrow-minded to have a view that just because my right to die can be misused, I should not be legally given it (right to decide when to die).

  • #629519
    In the third part of my response, I would like to discuss the ethical aspects of euthanasia. Many people are dead against euthanasia. They say that:-
    (a) Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill." The society is full of dishonest people. So, many patients, who can easily survive, may be given euthanasia because of various reasons, be it societal, family-related or financial.
    (b) Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment-This is a genuine problem. In many countries, patients, their relatives and in some cases some other interested parties may resort to euthanasia to contain the healthcare cost.
    (c) Euthanasia will be voluntary, but emotional and psychological pressures can become overpowering for depressed or dependent people.
    (d) Some psychologists say that legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide may lead to suicide contagion.
    (e) The opponents of euthanasia opine that it is rejection of the importance and value of human life. People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissible to take human life under some circumstances. But this argument is harmful to the entire society.

    In the next part, we will discuss the arguments in favour of euthanasia, particularly in the Indian context.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #629528
    People who are arguing for living will have to realize this Passive Euthanasia is already in following without our much thinking. Poor patient when they join in Corporate hospitals doctors they try their best to save the life. But if doctors find there is no response they simply ask the family members of the patient and then remove the life supporting system or they simply reduce the medication. Similarly in the case of patient who can spend any much money also, doctors after their complete trials finally they may say they cannot do any further please take away the patient and if you wish to continue treatment we continue treatment even though no hope. The verdict given by Supreme court is in a very peculiar case where outside social activists fought for this type of living will. No family members or any religion do not support when a person is in a live state to assisted death. In Aruna Shanbaug case her parents died and the outsiders went for legal battle. In my opinion no family members who are so loving do no think off assisted killing or mercy killing.

  • #629532
    Now, what are the arguments in favour of euthanasia? Many physicians have welcomed the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9th March, 2018. Dr B Srinivas Kakkilaya, an eminent physician, has said that the Supreme Court verdict will reduce the dilemma of the kin. He has stated: "Passive euthanasia through living will by a patient, who is fully conscious, fully oriented and fully aware, should be allowed. That is a welcome judgement when the cost of healthcare is going up. Unnecessary ventilation and other things can be avoided if the patient has written the will on his own earlier.'' This judgement will definitely ease the burden on the relatives and it will reduce their guilt. It is definitely a welcome move, particularly in cases when families are not able to afford care for terminally ill patients.

    Dr Edmond Fernandes, CEO, CHD Group, has opined that the Supreme Court judgement regarding passive euthanasia was long overdue. He has stated that when the state or the household concerned cannot manage escalating costs to keep a comatose patient alive and when the patient doesn't even know that he lives, the euthanasia the right thing to do.

    Some other doctors have stated that it is a welcome move since hospitals are always being criticized for keeping patients on ventilator.

    So, it can be stated that considering the increasing healthcare cost, difficulties of terminally ill patients and trauma of their relatives and keeping in mind the limited healthcare opportunities in a developing country like India, euthanasia and the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been welcomed by the physicians of India.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #629537
    This verdict of living will have many moral and ethical implications. By medical ethics a doctor is expected to safe guard or prolong life of a patient but not to assist for death. Involvement of doctors in carrying out this living will have negative moral influence on their honest duty. In many countries this law is in restricted use because of its misuse problem. In fact in Australia this law was withdrawn for sometime because of its misuse and is now revoked. India is a very highly populated country where things do not go in an orderly way like in well developed western countries. So there is every possibility this law will be abused and misused. As this live will can be used by the patient himself in advance and also the next close ones of the patients like family members, relatives or friends. So for various reasons for property reasons or to avoid expenditure on the diseased individual, the close ones of the patient may misuse this law is highly debated thing in the media at present. Many of them arguing to relieve the patient from pain or the patient has lost the dignity of living this assisted killing to be allowed. In course of time, if lakhs of people who are feeling their lives unworthy to live because they are physically handicapped with two hands or two legs are gone, no eyes, totally dumb, can't speak, mentally disabled or mentally retarded, leading life with serious diseases like Alzheimer, Hemophilia, neural diseases etc. People with all these diseases also have face severe pain in every minute while they lead their life in the society. If all these people also they ask for mercy killing since they have no dignity in their living what will be the situation?

  • #629539
    1. I think few authors are under the misconception that the decision of Euthanasia is taken overnight. I had already mentioned that when a patient is this critical and has shown no signs of improvement whatsoever in say around five years or more, then with the permission of the family, the doctors will form a board. In that board they will decide on the next possible steps.
    2. In fact, if you are under the misconception that only one doctor suggests that Euthanasia or mercy killing is a plausible option then it is not true. A hospital has several experts in the same field. How can many expert doctors give a wrong judgement and that too for a person who has been bedridden with NO SIGNS of improvement for long time.
    3. It is not about government or doctors deciding the fate of a person. If a person in severe coma for more than a decade could speak properly, then he would definitely utter two words "Mercy Killing." There is a reason why Euthanasia is called mercy killing. That is why government supports this and hence the judgement passed by Supreme Court. This is the reason why the Hippocratic oath is modified.
    4. I don't think any doctor or a board of doctors will see Euthanasia as a plausible option just because the resources of the hospitals or the beds and machinery of the hospital could be used otherwise. If doctors think Euthanasia as a viable option, that is because this would bring the patient out of his intolerable pain into eternal peace and bliss.
    5. Let me share with you a very sad and personal experience. One of my relatives was suffering from leukemia last stage. His son took him to one of the best cancer hospitals in India. There the doctors saw all the reports and said that if the treatment that was available at that time is given to him, then he would suffer excruciating pain, but survive for 3 months. Without treatment he would survive 1 month maximum. He chose the later. This is because with that 3 months treatment, he would have lost this one month.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629542
    1. Friends, you should think that Euthanasia is providing a normal and dignified death to the patients. Haven't you heard of people dying after prolonged life support? Is that normal for the patient? Is that very comforting for the family members. I have heard once a man saying that had he didn't agree to give his father a life support, his father would have got better and dignified death.
    2. If a dignified life is a right of everybody, so is a dignified death. People must have the right to choose their death IF AND ONLY IF it could be unanimously decided by him, his doctors and family members that NO other way is possible.
    3. If the thoughts of a patient who is in coma for the past 4-5 years could be read, I am sure he would accept that he is unhappy. He would definitely say that he either wants his previous hale and hearty life back or get rid of the life support once and for all.
    4. Euthanasia is also a form of medical treatment where a patient suffering for terminal illness is given the highest priority. That is why Hippocratic oath supports Euthanasia today.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629545
    When dealing with Euthanasia( where the patient has not made a living will),there is a different aspect of treating a patient to the last possible limit.
    I had narrated an incident in the trigger thread for this GD. A person who was once successfully operated on for Brain Tumor had it relapsed after about seven years. The condition started worsening and he was in coma. The doctors kindly advised the family to avoid the huge spending of money for a fruitless cause. They advised the money may come to use for the children and the soon-to-be –bereaved family . But the family unanimously asserted that they wil spend even to the last paisa and even borrowing to try al the possible ways to try to cure him or get him back at least to some extent. They did so, eventhough ultimately the inevitable happened. But the family did not want to feel the guilt or regret of not doing the best.
    Moreover, there is always the moral invisible, unexplainable difference in confidence of having a parent or spouse 'alive' as a unifying factor evnthough 'bedridden and in coma'. The close and most attached relatives will have a feeling of 'all is not lost'.
    I am afraid and shudder to think that (God forbid)'living will' may soon deteriorate to become like the compulsory fine printed 'terms and conditions' which we now simply sign and deliver for various services. It may soon become a mandatory and compulsory document or part of many undertakings one has to sign when being admitted to a hospital.
    I am also afraid that the organ selling racket may exploit the facility and thrive in commercial profits by exploiting a person's vulnerability.
    I am afraid that even relatives may coerce a vulnerable dependent person- generally to say, elderly parents and relatives- o make a living will well before as an anticipatory bail.
    We are seeing that many of the well intended legislations and court pronouncements slowly get misused and abused. But Euthanasia is a far more impactive matter as it is one between life and death.

  • #629547
    One of the interesting thing about this judgement- The Judge who involved in this land slide judgement Mrs. Gyan Sudha Mishra has faced a similar such situation in her real life. One year back her husband was affected by Brain hemorrhage and was hospitalized. He was kept on ventilators and was treated for 10 days by doctors. After that doctors explained her that he cannot live any further and asked her permission to remove ventilators supports. She told in an live interview that she is so attached to him she asked the doctors to continue the support and prolong the life as much as possible. She told that it is her personal experience and her way of respect to life. In my opinion this is the way any dear ones of the patient think and wants to see the dear ones to breathe to the last possible extent.

  • #629558
    I see that the judge herself has gone through a painful experience and decided against Euthanesia.
    But is that really humane? Letting a sufferer suffer for your selfish love? Well...that person can't even live properly anymore unless there is a miracle.
    She must bear heavy expenses to keep a clinically dead person alive. And that too for a very long time.
    Is it her way of respecting life ? Her husband is alive only thanks to the modern science. Prolonging a life through medicine isn't humane. It's going against nature.
    The very argument of humanity is invalid.
    We can't keep living forever defying our faculties .
    Decay cannot be postponed.
    I hence support passive and active euthanasia to kill the suffering.
    As Natarajan quoted,"let humans die humanely ".

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #629566
    In this response, I discuss the points raised by members who are against this. The common line is, medicine is advanced pain and suffering can be eased by medicines.

    It's sad that such statements reflect the lack of proper interpretation of Passive Euthanasia and Advance Directive. Yes, medical science is advanced to manage pain and suffering, that's why surgeons can operate, cut of an infected leg in a diabetic patient, ease the intense pain in a burns patient.

    But, what are discussing is a totally different set of scenarios, Not everyone can get Passive Euthanasia. It is only when they satisfy medical and legal criteria
    Persistent vegetative state, Only air is being pumped in by machines, the monitor shows a rhythm due to medicines but the patient not aware of anything with the end not in sight and recovery is not normal. Here the crux of the issue is, should life continue in such an inhumane way, can't we ( family and patient) have a say in giving the soul some dignity and end the process of prolonging an unmeaningful existence?
    Yes, we can, if they are mature enough and the criteria are met. It is activating the living will/passive euthanasia.

    The next paragraph should be read in an analytical way and not emotionally.
    People take a high moral stance when it comes to money. Money should not be criteria to decide life. Has anyone know what are the cost implications? An ICU bed in decent hospital costs around Rs10,000/day-15,000/day. Then keep in mind the cost of medications, the cost of dialysis, the cost of other expenses. Then add on the cost of stay for the family/loss of work hours etc. When you take all into consideration, the bills run up to lakhs in each patient. Not every family can arrange funds, people sell their property, jewels, possession and sometimes even their souls to the devil to meet the financial commitments. There are instances wherein poor family members cannot by the bills and leave the hospital without even collecting the remains.

    The above does not apply to people who can afford healthcare in India. It is for the subset who cannot afford two square meals. Isn't it the role of the society and the Government to help them. Have we helped them? No. Then what is the next option? When things are bleak, we need to guide the family to make decisions, yes, it is harsh, may sound unemotional, but some has to do it, IF, the criteria are met legally and medically.

  • #629572
    I would like to summarise my submission on 'Passive/Active Euthanasia GD: Should a family prolong life or permit a dignified death?', as follows -

    1. Active euthanasia is illegal in India and all other countries in the world except in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. When the medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, it is called active euthanasia. Thus the question of practicing ' active euthanasia' in India does not arises at all.

    2. Passive euthanasia under strict guidelines has been made legal in India in March, 2018 by the Supreme Court of India. The court also allowed the individuals to give 'living wills' or advance directives to stop medical treatment at a particular stage particularly when he/she is brain dead or clinically dead or not revivable. An individual is not answerable to any authority and he/she need not give any reason about writing an advanced directive. The situations as to how to go ahead with passive euthanasia in case there is no living will are also covered in the guidelines.

    3. When the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive, it is called 'passive euthanasia'. Generally it involves -
    i. switching off life-support machines
    ii. disconnecting a feeding tube
    iii. not carry out a life-extending operation
    iv. stop giving give life-extending drugs

    4. In absence of any tell tale judgement and clear guidelines so far many patients used to be made to suffer excruciating pain and undergo an undignified death due to societal pressure and fear of criminal liability by relatives and medical doctors. The doctors used to fear of being drawn into a possible family dispute for inheritance particularly in case of wealthy patients.

    5. The religion, ethics, morality, philosophy, spirituality, human-rights, law and society - all have conflicting opinions about whether right to life include the right to death, but none of them suggest that a person should die without dignity.

    6. Passive euthanasia is already in vogue in a different version in majority of the hospitals as many poor terminally ill patients or their family members choose to withdraw treatment as they find themselves unable to bear the huge costs involved in keeping the patient alive. They leave the patient to the mercy of the God by choosing to withdraw the treatment i.e. by practicing euthanasia.

    In view of the above logical reasoning, I am in favour of passive euthanasia.

    Let us encourage each other in sharing knowledge.

  • #629588
    The final part of my submission is,
    1. There is no necessity of discussing more active euthanasia as it is not legal in India and there is no scope for the same in our country at the present moment.
    2. These days in India there are many people who are not in a position to have costly medications because of their financial condition. Even though the government is introducing many subsidies and fee medical treatment schemes they are not reaching the really deserving cases. So many people leaving their old people's condition to the God and keeping them in the house waiting for their death. This type of cases is more seen in villages and backward areas. This is nothing but passive euthanasia only.
    3. The plight of some patients who got admitted to hospitals and living days together on the bed with life supports without any chance of revival can't be described. Such people will prefer to have died rather than living with suffering. Here in these cases, the supreme court decision will come as a help. For such people giving a chance to die without having the pain of treatment is a better proposition than suffering days together. The hospitals will try till the last moment as it is their profession and they have to earn for survival. A boy of 3 months(My brother's son) was on ventilators for one month almost and had his last breath. The sufferings that boy I have seen personally and I felt it is better to withdraw the support. But the parent's of the boy couldn't go for that decision. They spent almost ten lakhs and couldn't make the boy to see the daylight. The doctor's expressed their inability and continued the life support.
    4. The age-old people who are suffering from a long time without any chance of reviving can be given the choice and we can see that they will have a peaceful death rather than suffering in the hospitals. But there should be strict rules and regulations should be framed and see that they are followed. This is very much required especially in our country where value rupee more than a life.
    So I say passive euthanasia can be allowed in really deserving cases to have the suffers a peaceful death.

    always confident

  • #629589
    So far the outcome has from the member who are supporting are almost same and repeating it again and again.
    the main points are as follows by them.

    1, Euthanasia can be applied to such patient who has NO HOPE or have no use to live a life laying on bed.
    2. Euthanasia has come to provide people their death with "dignity "
    3. It has also been mentioned as "right to die"
    4. Some members have even compared the life of a DOG to human, ridiculous indeed!
    5. The strong point is who will take care of the person who has no support
    6. Euthanasia is the only last option
    7. some even compared the expenses and brought out money factor which is "cheap thinking" indeed!

    Our dear members who are supporting this has even commented to those who are opposing as "lack of proper interpretation.

    For them my counter answer is.

    1. It does mean that till a life or a patient has hope to get better, we should use and try all kind of medication and when their is no hope, we should kill him/her and name it a "dignity death" or right to die"? How selfish attitude or mentality is this? Just to hide our cruel act we are giving it a different name other than a "murder".

    2. No, Euthanasia has only come to hide people their sin which they can not do openly. Now since the law has come, it can be done more easily no matter how difficult is the process, we Indian are known to tackle any kind of law.

    3. When we do not have any authority over "right to live" for other people, how come we place our foot forward for "right to die" for other? Even if the patient wants to die, can't we allow them or support them to live other than to encourage them to die?

    4. Member should be refrain to compared the human life with any other species. We all know that human brain is totally different from animals and so our action and importance. Although life is a life whether it is for a Dog or human. And when we do not have authority over their living life, we should not have any authority over their death too.

    5. Yeah, this is a serious concern when a patient have no physical support from their family or friend. I am sure we are living in an advance life, where so many NGOs are working for different category of people . I am not able to understand why can't we create supporting help for such patient instead of providing them the so called "dignity death"?

    6. NO, this is the last option to get relive from such patient who are fighting for their "life".

    7. If we start comparing our life with "money" or "expenses", I am sure not only our medical expenses comes in this category but many more part of our life too. So, I feel it so cheap to think about money into this matter. When we are able to provide money when it matter in our life for different reason, why can't we be allow for this purpose? Yes, many not may able to do such huge expenses but for them their would sure be another option other than to kill such patient unnaturally.

    The SC law for passive euthanasia can only damage our society. The mind set of people will be changed totally and the life to live will become so cheap. Now we may say that it is for the "last option" to use, who knows how will it turn out for the future? We may even will give up so easily and let even little critical patient to die? The member who are supporting providing the hard and strong rules but how everything will be a transparent process, we can't blindly say this positively. The dignity to die may become a game for some people.

  • #629591
    The most important part is , such law can ruin the life of older people. When after getting into 70s, the family member start feeling them as their burden (not all people but most of the people), just imagine what will happen for them when they will become such patient. The so called family love may die soon and people will try to get away with their responsibility and may force them to have "dignity death" . Yes, it can be possible.

  • #629604
    Why would euthanasia be applied to someone who is hale and healthy? Just because a person is in his 70's, nobody will think of it. I simply cannot go and request a doctor to apply euthanasia to the patient just because I want to get rid of him. Before I talk to him, I will have a fear for his reaction, what if he complains to someone, what if he does not agree etc. Now, if I talk to him and doctor agrees, will his approval alone be sufficient for it? There are specialists, a committee, a set of rules and everyone must approve which is not very easy, and it impossible too.
    Everyone loves their family and their love for the family does not want the patient to be in deep pain with no signs of improvement. When doctor realises that the patient will suffer more and more day by day, getting weaker, no movement, painful procedures just to keep him alive, then why should a patient undergo so much pain? If refrain from treatments, he will have a peaceful death.
    Suppose a person has no money for treatments and doesn't continue the treatment, the patient will die. If a person is alive only because of treatment, then what is wrong is refraining from further treatment when the person shows no signs of improvement and things are getting worse?

  • #629609

    Read my sentence, I have mentioned "not all people but most of them" may feel burden. You may not but every people don't think the way you do. Am I correct? Also, not "everyone" love their family, the most dangerous enemy we get from nowhere but from our family itself. However, this is exceptional case.

    How would one know what is the close door meeting between a doctor and family member? The law or guidelines which may look hard and strong can be manipulated easily. The situation of the patient may be shown wrongly. No system of guidelines could ever be foolproof. There is always chance of misusing it. Some may say that just because fear of misusing this law, stopping passive euthanasia is not good. But even if there a chance of little percent of misusing it, I would say this will be devastating affect on society.

    "Suppose a person has no money for treatments and doesn't continue the treatment, the patient will die. "

    In above mentioned situation, one is dying naturally and not getting killed.

  • #629616
    In my previous four responses, I have dealt with the definition of euthanasia, active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. I have also discussed in detail the judgment delivered by the five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. I have mentioned the ethical arguments against and in favour of the euthanasia and the judgment in Indian context. Now what is my own view?
    In December, 2017, I lost my father-in-law. He left this world on 27th December, 2017. He had been in comatose stage since 12th December, 2017. I personally know how the near and dear ones felt during the last miserable 15 days of his life. I lost one of my maternal uncles in 1996. He had been in a coma for more than two months. In that case also, I felt the misery of his wife and his two sons. It i really tough time for the relatives to manage the day-to-day activities, their jobs and the comatose patient. I shudder to think what the relatives of those patients face who are in a vegetable state years after year.
    The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into account all these factors. They have understood the pain being suffered by such patients and the misery of the relatives. So, the Bench has very wisely given the permission of passive euthanasia subject to some strict conditions. The Bench has also allowed passive euthanasia in some cases where the patient is not in a position to express his/her will subject to monitoring by the High Court under the jurisdiction of which the concerned hospital falls.
    The Supreme Court has tried its level best to make the judgment fool-proof. In view of the same and keeping in mind the increasing healthcare cost, the unmitigated misery of such patients and their relatives and the fact that such patients unnecessarily occupy a valuable bed in a country like India where many better patients require life-saving equipment, I support the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #629617
    The entire debate for supporting this judgement are based on - How such bedridden or coma patient suffer or get painful life, how the family suffer in day-to-day life.

    So the main discussion should come out from all the supporter as how should family member get FREE from all these pains. More than to save a life, we are forcing our thought on such point as how to come out of such situation. No one is discussing that how should be saved a life but to kill a life before their natural death.

    In today's world even with the availability of advance technology and scientific progress, laws and regulations related to human health there is still doubt and controversy on this concept of merciful death called EUTHANASIA.

    The "right to death" is nothing but an empty right.

  • #629631
    The GD is well debated, as expected.I do not want to prolong the discussion from my side and want to summarise and conclude.
    My stand is that while we have to accept the SC judgement as such for the sake of legalities and legal position.

    But personally as a human being with sentiments and religious faith and wandering on philosophical lanes, I cannot support it with my heart.
    I base my views on the following points.

    1. The judgment has taken the steps based on the Allopathic modern medicine only. There are other systems of medicine and care her by the body is not tortured by taken care in a palliative smoothening way also.
    2. Religious faith and the principles of a doctor does not support 'taking away' life. The present judgment supports and legalises 'causing to take away ' life.

    3. When the body is declared as 'brain dead' what is the difference in dignity and lack of dignity? At that time the dignity and name is on the survivors, legal heirs and close relatives.

    4. Will there not be a feeling of guilt and regret of 'killing' the person even before the life has not ceased by itself? Won't the conscience prick you for murder?

    5. What if the patient continues in the same vegetative state for still longer period even after withdrawing 'life support aids'? Then can an active euthanasia be resorted to?

    6. Can't people expect miracles? We have heard a baby surviving for many days even when stuck inside the debris of earthquake or similar calamities?

    7. It is believed by many faiths that there is a soul. Certain faiths believe that the soul has to undergo the boons and sufferings of its karma. So when a souls has to leave without completing its karma phala, it is forced to take another birth and thus 'not get liberated'.The aim of all post death rituals conducted by the survivors is for liberation of the departed soul.

    8. Though the judgement emphasises 'dignity in death' too, is it a dignity to commit suicide or allowing an assisted suicide-which is what passive euthanasia is?

    9. Will it not be equal to 'using' the body only when it is well and 'throwing' it when it is not useful? Is that dignity or just a commercial practicality?

    10. God forbid, this should not lead to manipulated 'elimination' by greedy and selfish relatives unscrupulous organ transplant groups and interests.

    11. Apart from all this a philosophical question is 'Is our body our own possession to dictate its final disposal'? So how a living wil vcan be made on 'not self acquired property'?

    Though I have debated in the academic spirit, I wish and pray that human sentiments and attachments remain intact and every patient gets proper medical care and human care and every life passes away in peace and dignity as per God's will and destiny. I wish and pray every person goes without any body or mental suffering and gets a peaceful death in normal ambience and atmosphere after living a satisfied complete life.

    I thank all the participants to have approached this topic in various angles and come with their views. I hope our views will also be reflected in the future legislations in this matter.

  • #629641
    Since there are no frequent responses on this discussion and the time for this GD is coming to an end, I am here to conclude my points towards not supporting this judgment.

    1. Life is a precious and a beautiful gift by this nature. We should try to save it as much as possible than to run away from our family responsibilities and kill someone unnaturally.
    2. In religious points of view too, there is not a single religion that is agree with Euthanasia.
    3. No one should have the right to call for and end for other's life, this is not ethical.
    4. Even if some patient who Does Not Want To Live and ask for a "dignity death", should be provided a strong support and may allow them for "Euthanasia counseling". Instead of forcing them to go for death.
    5. To Say – "How painful a patient has", or "a patient suffering and struggling for a life", or "Such patient if allow for dignity death will have peaceful and respectful death". – These opinions are based on personal speculation and nothing else.
    6. Family members should be more helpful towards their responsibilities than to have negativity thinking about a helpless patient for whom they go for such cruel action.
    7. Legalizing such law will only forward our society on a slippery slope and that may lead to improper consequences. Also it cab only weaken the sanctity of life in our society.
    8. The law can be manipulated and misuse for people's personal interest. Even though there are strong guidelines, we can not positively say that everything could go transparently in this process.
    9. The law can go against older people those who are struggling for their life. Any small thing can be looked from microscope to create panic and situation for their health if ever the family members have their own evil thought of getting rid from older parents or person.
    10. We can not totally rely on the doctors as they are no more a God but a businessman. Allowing this
    Law can only undermine the commitments of the doctor and nurses to save a life. This can
    provide too much interfere of doctors in our life and on personal decision.
    11. Allowing euthanasia can only lead to less care towards such patient. The thinking of society more
    in negative way can be possible in future. We may even start looking negatively for such patient
    those who are in less critical conditions.
    12. The "feelings" and "emotions", the "love" and "care" would become the subject only for the "educational purpose".
    13. Allowing euthanasia will only discourage the new research for the terminally ill patient.

    I hope I have provided enough points for not supporting this judgement. Thanks to all the members for participating this GD. Please do not take any comment personally as this is GD and one have to aggressively put forward their points.

  • #629663
    Here is my conclusion.
    After seeing members discuss and argue for three whole days I've realised what stops passive euthanasia from being popular among Indians.
    It is strong Indian family values and the belief to let live.
    But to let a life suffer just because you want it to live is absurd. Pain must be killed as soon as possible. What if living becomes a pain?
    What if a task as mundane and trivial as defecation requires an assistance?
    What if breathing becomes miserable?

    I would totally give way for passive and active euthanasia because they help us halt and relieve a life. I've cited that voluntary euthanasia is a sign of modernisation in many of my replies in past. I still stand by it.
    It might sound heartless but that's the truth.
    Bearing huge expenses to keep alive a dying person is just not worth it.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #629669
    As we are drawing to the close of a thoughtful debate on a difficult and contentious subject, I would conclude as follows.

    1. The living will and Passive Euthanasia being accepted in India is a sign of our advancement, our maturity, both with regards to how much we respect a meaningful life and the right to truly live one's life.

    2. Active Euthanasia: I still think our country needs far more manpower and social maturity, maybe a decade or two from now, India would be ready to embrace this.

    3.The very name of euthanasia would trigger many emotions in one's mind including spiritual and divine feelings. Yes, it would because we are talking about drawing a line in one's life, a meaningful line to an unmeaningful existence.

    4.George Bernard Shaw has quoted that, Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents an airplane the pessimist invents the parachute. Similarly, there would be critics who would vehemently oppose or criticise passive euthanasia, I welcome them, otherwise, the thoughts of people who agree, like me cannot reflect on this better and make it more foolproof.

    5. It's is human and normal to be emotionally bonded to life and at time of crisis be happy with the artificial pumping of breaths into a soulless body for the sake of prolonging life. But we should think beyond.

    6. Such people need to be educated about the true value of life, the dignity, the quality of life, the right of a person to live and at the same time die when circumstances are opposite of what they want.

    7. Euthanasia has been tarnished by the common term mercy killing, no it is not, far from that, it is a dignified way to end an undignified life in certain specific circumstances.

    8. We are not trying to play God or decision maker, based on a set of medical criteria, backed by data and the advise of the legal minds, there is a way out of endless suffering, dishonorable condition wherein the person is wallowing in a pool of his or her own excrements, tubes in an out, a cacophony of noises and alarms, people/devices invading various orifices and no respect for privacy including embarrassing exposure of private parts.

    9. Do we want this to proceed when the outcome is abysmal? Do we want to see our own loved ones in this condition? Would they also want to suffer like this in a drug-induced stupor? No, they would not, even the most sensitive and emotional individual would be praying deep within their hearts, God, can you be more merciful and allow him/her to pass peacefully?

    10.I'm not supporting it blindly and saying that it should be cast in stone, No, we need to audit with great reverence and transparency about the cases in India and have an expert committee with members of the public, Human rights groups, medical fraternity and the best legal minds to fine tune this landmark judgement.

    10.So, I put my case to rest saying that Passive Euthanasia and Living will be welcomed in our country, we need to have mechanisms in place wherein the medical community or families do not misuse these very important clauses for their own selfish reasons wherein money would top the list.

    11.We all respect life, I request you to also respect a patient's autonomy, his/her right to chose dignity over irreversible misery and suffering. When applicable, "Euthanasia" is the kindest, most human ' last gift' we can give our loved ones when their very existence becomes inhuman. Once we realize this, we would understand it's value.

  • #629670
    Now it's time for me to conclude. I have already stated that I support the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have cited my justifications in support of my view. But what is the subject-matter of the GD? ''Should a family prolong life or permit a dignified death?'' The answer is very simple. It varies from family to family according to the circumstances. Some families would try to prolong the miserable life of a ''vegetable'' patient hoping against hope for a miracle, or for some other consideration. In some other families, the family members will take a pragmatic decision not to prolong the misery of the patient and also of their own.

    In this connection, I would like to add the following. Some Members who are against the judgement and the euthanasia, have brought religious considerations to the fore. I must state that no religion has supported prolonging the miserable life of patients. No religion has objected ''death with dignity''. I feel that those arguments against the euthanasia are fallacious arguments.

    I again thank the Managing Director for arranging GD on this interesting and debatable topic. I wish well to all participants. Thanks to all of you.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #629674
    As it is coming close to the end of this debate I wish to brief out my views what I have debated on this GD:-
    1. Human values always promote care for dear ones, provide a soothing touch for healing, provide compassion and love. No human being think off or imagine to assist for death.
    2.. The person whom we think to provide dignity to death may not know about it but the doctor and the family members who are assisted for the death will feel themselves undignified individuals throughout their life.
    3. Because of implementing this law security of patients will be put at stake. By using the loopholes in the law various abuses and misuses takes place which has a deterring affect on the functioning of human society.
    4. Passive Euthanasia is in an experimental stage which is followed in very few countries in the world and also the success rate found to be very low. India is a highly populated country where most of the things don't go in an orderly way and a misuse of this law may affect large number of innocent people.
    5. By misusing this law family members through will of living eliminate elders to get property or to avoid the burden of their service to them. This type of attitude in human society will lead to the destruction of human values.
    6. Assisting for mercy killing through law is one way saying or promoting man to die to avoid difficulties in life. This type of attitude will promote take life easy policy in younger generation which is not at all good for the productive and welfare society.
    7. Science and technology is always promising and it always provide hope or solution for any difficulty of human life. But opting for assisted murder means we are insulting Science and its importance.
    8. Doctors are meant for safe guarding the health of a patient but allowing him through law for assisted death of the patient is to remove the moral and dignity of the doctor.
    9. Already a kind of Passive Euthanasia is going on unofficially where a case reaches to hopeless situation, the doctors with the consent of family members withdrawing life supporting system which is fair enough. By bringing this law it give a wrong route for culprits to misuse for their advantage and harm the innocent people of the society.
    10. If lakhs of people present in India who are leading an unworthy life due to, they are physically handicapped with loss of legs, loss of hands, dumb, lame, cannot speak, mentally retarded, paralytic, infested with incurable diseases asks for such assisted deaths or dignified deaths can we provide such dignified deaths to all of them because these people also leading their lives with lot of pain and discomfort in every minute of their life.
    11. Can an amazing Scientist like Stephen Hawking think that his life is worth less because the kind of unimaginable bodily discomfrts he faced with brain only working state can he able to discover the wonders of the universe and did research till his last breath?

  • #629675
    I would like to conclude my argument in favour of the judgement of Supreme Court with the following points and counter arguments:
    1. My fellow author brought the point of the cost of medicines getting increased due to Euthanasia. This is never possible. In fact, the contrary to this is possible. Life saving medicines will face price cut as they will loose value for patients with life support.
    2. Some of my fellow authors have put forward the point of organ donation of the victim of coma as a positive aspect of Euthanasia. But let me tell you that Euthanasia or mercy killing is an option chosen for those patients who are suffering from terminal illness. Since this decision is taken long after the patient goes to coma, his organs tend to be in a really bad shape to be donated to somebody. In fact, there is no medical journal which supports the fact of organ donation of people to whom passive Euthanasia will be applied.
    3. Euthanasia will be regarded as one of the humane acts in a few more years. This is a way to end a person's mental and physical trauma.
    4. Yes, Euthanasia cannot fall under normal death. But Euthanasia is the most natural death in comparison to other disease related deaths. Here the patient is not letting the disease take away his moral dignity and moral right.
    5. Euthanasia is a form of showing mercy to the families of the victims. No one can understand their mental agony, not even the patient. Passive Euthanasia can restore their mental peace when every other method has failed.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629677
    At the end I would like to say that,
    6. Euthanasia is also called Mercy Killing. So you should never compare this with a criminal killing. The reasons are that a criminal killing involves killing for hidden agenda, killing for personal gain, killing a hale and hearty person, killing with a plan, terminating the life of the victim without his or his family's consent. Do you see any of the above things in Euthanasia?
    7. It's obvious that nobody would want passive Euthanasia to be applied on anybody. This is also reflected from most of the views of the authors here. All of us would always want a patient to get well as quickly as possible. But we must always feel the pain of families having coma patients with almost no signs of life or movement for years.
    8. I believe that this judgement of Supreme Court would encourage medical science students to come up with better life saving drugs and life support systems that will never let people go into an unending coma state.
    9.Lastly, I also believe that such a judgement would discourage the malpractices of nursing homes. Some nursing homes try to keep coma patients for years in a vegetative state to increase the bill, knowing and hiding the fact that the patient will never be cured.
    I hope I could put my arguments clearly.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #629680
    I conclude my debate with support to the judgment of SC about euthanasia.
    1. There is no wrong in implementing euthanasia when required. Few members call it murder, but it is not a murder but ending a plight of a patient in a peaceful way.
    2. There is no point in investing more and more money when there is no positive outcome and things are in fact getting worst. Instead, I feel it is better to save the money and use it for family when they require it. But this doesn't term that we don't love the patient and ending his life.
    3. Euthanasia should be implemented and strong measures need to be taken to not misuse it.

  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.